From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Oct 1 01:50:28 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 01:50:28 -0000 Subject: Pureblood Pretenders and Sorting Hat Was (Re: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140985 Elyse: > I'm taking this as a joke. It is one isnt it? > I dont see how Muggles could attack Hogwarts if LV himself cant > penetrate its defences. And what kind of other attack would the > school be under that you would have to resort to Dark Serpents with > murderous stares to save youself? Again I think you were probably > only half serious about this, so never mind. houyhnhnm: Yeah, but a thousand years ago. In those days Muggles believed in magic. Muggles and Wizards were still part of the same magical world, which also contained Giants, Goblins, Centaurs, and so forth. Muggles could have allied themselves with disaffected factions among the Wizarding population, just as LD did with Giants and Dementors, making them more dangerous than modern Muggles even though their destructive power was so much less. (Trebuchets vs. Nukes) From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Oct 1 01:55:21 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 01:55:21 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140986 PJ replies: > Not threatened... puzzled and maybe a bit frustrated. > I can't speak for anyone else of course but sometimes > I'm not at all sure we're all reading about the same > characters. :-) houyhnhnm: We're reading about the same characters. We're just not reading them with the same heads. That's why this argument is never going to be settled. (Well, not for a couple of years anyway ;-) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 02:22:38 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:22:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140987 Alla: > Do you think that Snape unwillingly overlooks the fact that Harry was > raised a muggle? Because it is strange to me that he would not know, > since whole WW knows that Harry is ... well, not being raised in WW. > > I think Snape did it on purpose, knowing whole well that Harry has > no clue about magic yet and have not had ever any exposion to amgic > after his parents' murder. Just me of course. Ceridwen: Sometimes I'm sure Snape and everyone else knew. Other times, I'm not so sure. Snape made a big enough deal of the 'celebrity', which would only serve if Harry actually was raised as a celebrity. That wouldn't happen in the Muggle world, only in the WW. Yet, Snape works at Hogwarts, is part of the Order, is privy to information about the students as a member of faculty, and so on. I find it confusing, more for Snape than for the nameless faceless WW at large. For them, I doubt if any of them gave too much thought to where Harry was being raised, they only knew it wasn't in their neighborhood. I'm even less sure that Snape understood, or if he was even told, how badly the Dursleys were raising Harry. Would his position warrant him knowing that? He wasn't Harry's Head of House, he wasn't any big cheese in the Order. I guess a case could be made for him knowing as part of having Harry in his classes. But, that's based on this world, not on the WW. Things may be different. Alla: > > Well, actually I always realised that we have limited POV, and > Snape's actions are VERY often defended based on the fact that we > only see what Harry sees. It is a fair argument, Harry IS wrong > sometimes, I am not disputing that. ( I believe he is also right > quite often of course :-)) Ceridwen: It'd be strange if he wasn't right at least part of the time! How can he be set up as the hero of the story if he's consistently wrong about *everyone* and *everything*? I'm glad he's not right about everything and everyone all the time, though. Those are big shoes to fill for younger readers, and frankly, a character like that, especially a kid, is not only boring, but aggrivating. At least to adults, IMO. Alla: > But at the same time I also think that the importance of "Harry being > wrong" argument is often exagerated, because some actions of Snape, > or I would say many actions of Snape are objective, IMO and I cannot > evaluate them differently whether Harry or anybody else sees them. Ceridwen: Yet, the broom hexing incident seemed so clear-cut, so obvious, there was Snape, muttering under his breath, and there was Harry, hanging on for dear life. Harry wasn't the only one who got it wrong, either. Ron and Hermione also got the impression that it was Snape. So, the circumstantial evidence did point in his direction from an objective source, the reaction of Ron and Hermione. But in the end, we found that circumstances were not as they seemed, he was countering someone else's hex. > > Again, going back to the first scene, I find Lebeto's example to be > perfect - Snape punishes Harry for the fact that he did not help > Neville. Erm... how exactly would it look differently if anybody else > would tell us "objective description " of this action? > > I mean, sure Draco and Co woul add different adverbs or objectives to > it - " how great that Snape did punish that Potter or something like > that", but suppose we are asking "neutral" narrator to tell us about > this event. Do you think such narrator would be able to put positive > spin on Snape's actions here? Ceridwen: I don't know if an objective narrator could. I don't have anything else other than Harry's POV to go on. Given what we have, no, I doubt it. But, going back to the broom hexing, I can't allow myself to be quite so sure about it. It *looks* like a duck, it *quacks* like a duck, but is it a duck? Alla: > I think it would look to anybody as absolutely unwarranted bullying > or nastiness, if you like this word better. :-) > > It looks even worse in retrospect, IMO, when we see Snape punishing > Hermione for actually HELPING Neville. > > Poor Gryffs, they are d*mned if they do something and d*mned if they > don't do the same thing on Snape lessons. Ceridwen: Nastiness might be a decent word for Snape's actions. From what we *can* see, he does come off as a biased creep when it comes down to Gryffindors v. Slytherins. And it seems he's always out to take points, and he seems to positively gloat when he catches Harry or one of Harry's friends at something. He doesn't come off as a bully as much as someone who is hoping almost gleefully to see someone get into trouble. So, sure, nasty/nastiness. We had been warned that he favors his Slytherins. But again, I'll say it with reservations. I don't know any more than the narrator tells me. Someone has mentioned that the HP books are written very much like detective novels, and we're kept in the dark so we can solve the puszzle along with the hero. The thing about these books is, they're self-contained stories in themselves, but they're all part of a larger whole. And the narrator, who is most often in Harry's head, is still concealing things until the absolute end. (Heck, for all I know, DD&Co are really the bad guys, Voldemort's the white hat, and the MoM is the model government. With all the twists and turns we've been subjected to, I'm surprised any of us can find 'up'! ;) JMO) Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 1 02:45:00 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:45:00 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140988 Jen previous: > > I'm [...] saying there was a very large possibility Eileen was > > seen as a blood traitor when she married a Muggle. Whether > > Voldemort knew about it or cared is impossible to say, but the > > groundwork is there for Snape to be recruited as a means of > > punishing Eileen. Perhaps Snape, like Lupin and Draco, found > > out the truth later on. Nora: > Eileen married a Muggle, which speaks to some kind of openness; > even if she deceived him about being a witch, she would never have > married someone who she thought was 'filthy'. This all speaks to > it being at least reasonably amicable. Young Snapey as being > targeted because his mommy married a filthy Muggle...that has > legs. One does wonder how much he bought into the pureblood > ideology. Jen: Actually, I wasn't referring to Eileen's family seeing her as a blood traitor, rather, Voldemort and the DE's. When Eileen married and had Severus, Voldemort wasn't in power. He was traveling and going through transformations. By the time Snape was at Hogwarts, Voldemort was gaining power. He may have put two-and-two together about his old schoolmate Eileen and her Muggle husband, a situation very similar to his own hated parents (in his mind). Since Voldemort's proven to recruit young people to punish the parents, his interest in Snape may have been similar to his interest in Draco. Potioncat: > We also have someone (Harry?) presuming that Eileen is a > Pureblood. We don't know that. Yes, she was a witch. For all we > know, she was Muggleborn. And while that isn't likely, it's > possible. It's also possible that if the Prince family was > established, that Snape's unfortunate circumstances of birth would > be somewhat disregarded by others. Jen: Harry does presume, although there's certainly some canon for Eileen being pureblood. We've only met two half-blood students sorted to Slytherin from what I remember--Riddle and Snape. Riddle was sorted there because of his illustrious Slytherin lineage, so it's possible Snape was sorted there because the Prince lineage was notable, or at least most of the Princes were in Slytherin. If the Princes were important in the WW and/or Eileen was good at potions, I suspect we'll hear more about the Snape family from Slughorn. Nora: > One can provide the more charitable reading of that quote, to be > sure, but my reading is more of the "there are things that it's > not good to have Snape around for a reason". Particularly as the > essence of the Dark Arts is domination... Jen: Voldemort's form of dark arts is domination, I'm not sure all of it is. Either way, I wasn't arguing a charitable reading of that quote so much as saying it was probably more proof of Snape's interest in the dark arts. But I didn't explain that, so how could you know? ;) Nora: > Speaking of that, my counterquestion is still open. We've got > hints and such that Snape is something of an ideological kindred > to Voldemort--can anyone provide me with arguments for Snape as an > *ideological* counterpart to Dumbledore? Canon for Snape > believing in the power of love, believing the best of people, > faith, hope, charity, teamwork, friendship? Jen: I can't see Snape drawn to either side for ideological reasons, frankly. He joined Voldemort to further a personal agenda and the same for rejoining Dumbledore, as far as I can tell. He didn't *object* to the pureblood agenda of Voldemort, but was good at 'slithering out of action' according to Bella, and Snape doesn't deny it. On the other side he doesn't have to personally believe in Dumbledore's philosphy to be a useful spy. Why he's a member of the Order, I can't guess. Surely he could be a spy without joining the Order. Dumbledore could pass on information from an 'informant' and very few of the teachers are actually in the Order. I do wonder whether we'll find out threats on Eileen's life or torture of her, rather than Lily's murder, were the reason Snape ultimately left Voldemort. Maybe LV sensed some indecision on Snape's part due to his slithering behavior, and decided to up the ante, expecting Snape would cringe and swear his alliance. Instead it was the final straw, and Snape became a double agent. Jen From juli17 at aol.com Sat Oct 1 02:59:03 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:59:03 EDT Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons Message-ID: <67.4e4129dd.306f5577@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140989 Magda says: >People who find Snape objectionable seem to feel very threatened by >those of us who find him a deeper character who still has a lot of >information and backstory to impart. PJ replies: Not threatened... puzzled and maybe a bit frustrated. I can't speak for anyone else of course but sometimes I'm not at all sure we're all reading about the same characters. :-) Everything I've ever read of Snape, both in the books and the interviews the author gives, show him to be a bad guy through and through. So, if JKR *says* he's bad and *writes* him as bad, where does the idea of "good Snape" come from? Other than Dumbledores assertions that he trusts Snape (while never saying he's a GOOD guy), there's absolutely no canon for it that I can see. Julie says: I guess we all get frustrated by different things. One is the lack of agreed upon definitions for words like "bad" and "good." A lot of us think Snape is a "good guy" because he is on the *side* of Good, not because there is anything remotely nice about him. And there is plenty of canon to support that possibility beyond Dumbledore's trust in him, including Snape saving Harry from Quirrel, saving Dumbledore from the ring horcrux, saving Katie Bell from Draco's potion, refusing to brew more veritaserum for Umbridge, and quite a few other incidents that conflict with the concept of a unilaterally "bad" Snape. While JKR said Snape is a "deeply horrible person," she also said, quite contradictorally "There is more to Snape than meets the eye." And if--I say *if*--he turns out be be good in the sense of being on the side of Good, what would you EXPECT JKR to say beyond dropping vague hints like "There's more to Snape than meets the eye"? If she flat out said "Snape seems all bad, but in the end you'll find out he really has some good in him and has been helping Harry all along" then what would be the POINT of reading the books? Well, besides Harry, of course ;-) My point is, JKR isn't going to reveal the "real" Snape to us in her interviews. So the argument that she only points out his bad traits therefore he must be Bad doesn't hold much water. Not to mention, what would we have to argue--er, debate about! PJ again: For me the frustration comes into play when I read that from just one snippet of memory it's decided that James MUST have bullied Snape without any provocation through out 7 years of school. But we don't know what came before or after that small bit of memory, whether it was unusual (if it were a normal everyday thing why would it be singled out as "his worst memory"?) or what came before or after. Regardless, from that one snippet James is tried and convicted of being the biggest bully on the playground while despite of all the solid canon available on how bad Snape is, people turn themselves inside out to make excuses for him and paint him as a "good guy". It's a mystery... Julie says: I don't think most of us turn canon inside out at all to make excuses. We point out canon that is inconsistent with Snape as nothing more than a cardboard bad guy. I also know there is a long history of enmity between James and Snape before the pensieve incident, and Snape certainly must have done his share to keep it going. But that also doesn't change the fact that James and Sirius were bullying Snape at the time. And I don't convict James of being the biggest bully on the playground based on the pensieve incident. I do, however, convict him of *sometimes* being arrogant and a bully as a student BASED on both Sirius and Lupin's admissions of that fact about James's character. (Was it Lupin who said by James sixth year he had *quit* hexing other students just for fun?) There is also the many demerits Harry has to read through during his detention in HBP that indicate James and Sirius got into trouble on a regular basis. Now, I don't know whether James and Snape were equal prats as Hogwarts students, or whether one was worse than the other, but it really is immaterial. What matters is whether they grew out of it--in essense, whether they grew UP. James did, Snape has never quite managed it, and there is where James clearly wins. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Oct 1 03:05:00 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 03:05:00 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: <20050929213147.6650.qmail@web61218.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140990 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jaja Redor wrote: > You really have a point there... but this site really got me thinking. You might want to check it out too. > > http://www.eulenfeder.de/int/gbint.html > > > When I found out that Black was actually Zwarts in Deutsch version of Harry Potter, it got me thinking. Regulus Black is not there but it mentioned Sirius Black and was written as: > > I happened notice the Netherlands translation for S.P.E.W. and it comes out to another funny four-letter toilet word (ahem, not as nice as Poo). But seriously - do we have any non-English readers out there, and can they tell us if Sirius's brother and the author of the mysterious letter to the Dark Lord at the end of HBP have the same initials in another language(s)???? Allie From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 03:06:20 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 03:06:20 -0000 Subject: Pureblood Pretenders and Sorting Hat Was (Re: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140991 "a_svirn" wrote: > I'm not sure about that. She didn't want to be in Gryffindor because > she valued courage above anything else; she simply assumed that it was > the best house, because the present headmaster was its alumnus. And > naturally she wanted the best. Quite a Slytherin way of reasoning > actually. > zgirnius: So do you think the Hat just basically rubber stamps the choices of the students? They tell it which house they want, and it obliges? (Or, it selects based on its stated criteria from among the houses a student considers acceptable, as in Harry's case, since he only specified "not Slytherin?) I agree, Hermione often takes what I imagine to be a Slytherin approach to life. I find a lot of GoF and OotP, and how Harry reacts to situations vs. how Hermione reacts to them, to be sort of an exercise in contrasts between a "Gryffindor" and "Slytherin" style. (Roughly speaking...I'm not all that clear on what that means...) They both have problems with Rita Skeeter in GoF. Harry confronts her, a highly ineffective tactic. Hermione finds dirt on her and blackmails her. In OotP they both have problems with Umbridge. Harry confronts her (more than once), a gutsy but highly ineffective tactic. Hermione, however, having established to her own satisfaction that Umbridge is a worthless teacher, backs down, but arranges to get herself (and lots of other interested students) taught by Harry. She also uses her contacts (Luna, Rita) to get Harry's story out. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 1 04:03:26 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 04:03:26 -0000 Subject: The cave potion and soul pieces (Re: OFH! Snape again ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140992 (Replies to Valky and Saraquel here) > Valky: > For one, there is no categorical evidence of that 1/7th of soul > being destroyed. In fact, the text literally says it was an > *exchange*, that it was destroyed is only figuratively implied. > Without assumptions of what DD 'figuratively' means by 'exchange', > there is no reason at all to think it was destroyed. If we take it > perfectly literally as given then Dumbledore is with certainty > saying that he gave his hand, and got Voldemorts soul given back > to him in return. Jen: See, I read that a different way: DD gave up his wand hand, a very crucial part of being a wizard, to destroy the soul piece. One death in exchange for one death. If his wand hand were merely injured, then the soul piece would only be injured, too. But the hand is dead, so the soul piece is dead. > > Jen: OK, that moment alone might be worth your theory being true! > > Except Snape passed up the perfect opportunity to lay his guilt > > trip on Harry when H. screamed for him to 'kill me, like you did > > him, coward!' (paraphrased). > Valky: > Aha! but read again Jen, they aren't yelling about Dumbledore > Harry is not accusing him of killing Dumbledore, he's accusing him > of killing James. Jen: Pippin mentioned that intepretaion, so I have read and re-read that passage. I do see Snape is referring to James previous to the "kill me like you did him" quote by Harry. The ambiguous part to me is Snape has no idea Harry knows he was the eavesdropper. Dumbledore never told Snape's story to anyone. Snape doesn't know a mere few hours before Harry heard Trelawney spill the beans. It's possible Dumbledore warned Snape that Harry found out the truth in the five minutes it took Harry to get his cloak, but we aren't privy to that. It seems to me even if Harry is referring to James, Snape would automatically think of the AK cast at Dumbledore b/c that's the person he 'killed' so recently and Harry was there to see it (which Snape must have known when he saw the two brooms and no Harry, or because DD told him he was taking Harry to the cave). Jen: > > Possession would explain how Voldemort was able to keep the > > potion-drinker "alive long enough to find out how they managed > > to penetrate so far through his defenses, and most importantly > > of all, why they were so intent upon emptying the basin." (chap. > > 26, p. 569, Scholastic) > Valky: > Sorry, Jen, I don't understand how it explains that. Jen: What I meant is if the potion has some type of essence of Voldemort in it that can possess the person drinking it, Voldemort would then be able to see into the person's thoughts and feelings to figure out why the person is in the cave, how he found it in the first place, and why the person is emptying the basin. After Voldemort has accessed the information he needs, he leaves the body and the person dies, ala Quirrell, or a stronger wizard would still be alive but very weak. Some aspect of the potion would kick in to make the drinker crave water and drink from the lake. That would be the poison and would also line up with Dumbledore's idea the potion isn't meant to 'kill immediately' because it doesn't actually do the killing, the water does. > Saraquel: > That the soul-part would possess anyone who tried to destroy it is > the perfect defence,IMO and soooo Voldemort. > > That if the Ring HSP (horcrux soul part)had already posessed DD, > then Snape would know that and DD's pleading on the tower makes > complete sense, "I'm possessed by the horcrux we went after > tonight, you must kill me in this situation." Snape would have > known that DD was going after a horcrux IMO, as he would have > forewarned Snape to be ready. Jen: It would definitely have to be a property of the potion since the real Horcrux wasn't in the basin. How that could happen, well, one of those super potion-makers will explain it to us! Valky: > I definitely agree with tht connection, but then what about > the : "Its all my fault.. I did wrong.." stuff? It doesn't really > seem like what someone would say when being possessed like Harry > in the MOM, nor like anything Voldemort would say. Saraquel: > Although it accounts beautifully for some of what DD says, it > doesn't really account for the other stuff. Surely this is not a > remorseful young Tom Riddle whilst he was being punished for > taking the kids into the cave? Maybe the young Tom Riddle did > have some sort of a conscience. Jen: Well, the potion wouldn't be like a full-strength Voldemort right away, like when he possessed Harry in the MOM, but would gain in strength as more potion is drunk. In the beginning DD appears to be in pain, and most of his words are directed at Harry, saying he doesn't want any more of the potion and wants the pain to stop-- "don't make me, want to stop" and the like. As the potion gets stronger, I imagined Voldemort torturing Dumbledore with thoughts that would coincide with his worst fears--hurting students at Hogwarts, torturing Order members and the like (sort of like showing Harry Sirius being tortured at the DOM). When the potion is almost gone, at full strength inside Dumbledore, that's when it was an echo of Harry at the DOM and the pain is beyond imagining, "KILL ME!" Then he passes out as the essence of Voldemort leaves his body, ala Quirrell. A weaker wizard might be dead as Voldemort leaves his body, but since Voldemort expects only a strong wizard would make it that far, he has the poison water as a back-up, knowing the potion will leave someone feeling incredibly thirsty and be unable to drink anything but the lake water. Most likely DD took an antidote prior to the trip which slows the poison's effects. It's convoluted, I know, speculative. Valky: > I have been mulling over the thought that somehow Snape and > Dumbledore managed to stop the possession and life drain, but not > indefinitely, hence DD preparing for his death. It would makes > sense that the entry point of the curse would reflect the madness > within, and I think this is in the nature of Voldemorts curses > deliberately. Jen: So this is where the soul piece would still be inside Dumbledore? Maybe I'm thinking too much about the diary, but it seems like if the ring is destroyed, the soul piece would be too. Maybe it did enter Dumbeldore and that's what caused him to be near- death, but then I do think the evil spirit/soul was cast out somehow by Snape and when it was destroyed, as it left DD's body, it withered his wand hand in the process. I guess my reluctance to think the soul piece is inside DD is feeling undecided about DD dying throughout HBP. I really don't see signs he's weakening before the potion. If anything he seems more energetic. Harry never sees flashes of anyone behind Dumbledore's eyes like DD saw in Harry's eyes when Voldemort was in there. So I'm still up in the air on this one. Jen From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 1 02:03:15 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:03:15 -0400 Subject: Damage to Dudley? References: Message-ID: <017401c5c62c$49dce080$6872400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140993 > "hpfan_mom" wrote: >> >>> On the other hand, she hinted that there is more to Petunia than >> meets the eye, although she is NOT a squib. >> >>> JKR said that squib was a good guess, though. So perhaps Petunia IS >> a witch but *voluntarily* chose not to attend Hogwarts or to develop >> her magical skills? Magpie: The whole of her quote says that Squib is a good guess because there is more to Petunia than meets the eye, but that Petunia is not a Squib, she is a Muggle. "She is a Muggle" sounds like she's not a Witch, but that JKR is saying she's like a Squib because Squibs can't do Magic but know things about the WW and can be tied to it in some way. Or probably something more mysterious that we don't understand yet, but I don't see how she could be a Witch. Personally I think she'd have jumped at the chance to go to Hogwarts. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 1 02:34:26 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:34:26 -0400 Subject: Hermione's Sorting (was:Pureblood Pretenders and Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <019b01c5c630$a5000920$6872400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 140994 asvirn: > I'm not sure about that. She didn't want to be in Gryffindor because > she valued courage above anything else; she simply assumed that it was > the best house, because the present headmaster was its alumnus. And > naturally she wanted the best. Quite a Slytherin way of reasoning > actually. Actually, I think she did value courage more. She says so to Harry when she talks about how "books and cleverness" don't compare to his kind of heroism, and I think her actions throughout the books show that she values knowledge used for practical aims more than knowledge for itself. Her passions aren't specific areas of research but social injustice. -m From juli17 at aol.com Sat Oct 1 06:06:40 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 02:06:40 EDT Subject: UV = DDM? Message-ID: <100.1d151ffe.306f8170@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 140995 Juli wrote: > > 2. Dumbledore knows about the UV, but does not > > tell Draco because he does not want Draco to be > > entirely sure that Snape is DDM, not at this point > > (in order to protect Snape if Draco does manage to > > become a murderer). > I'm just curious, since you didn't add a rebuttal > "but" clause > to #2, exactly what is wrong with it that it doesn't > have > solid merit like 1a &1c. I happen to like #2 myself, > and > it's not really convoluted (though #3 is, IMO). Mira: Before denying that the UV took place, Dumbledore says to Draco: ---- "I was sure it was you." "Why didn't you stop me, then?", Malfoy demanded. "I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my orders..." [...] "He's a double-agent, you stupid old man, he isn't working for you, you just think he is!" "We must agree to differ on that, Draco. It so happens that I trust Professor Snape -" ---- I find these pieces of information incriminating enough for Snape. Was it necessary to provide them? I don't think so. Dumbledore could have simply said that he had watched over Draco closer than Draco might have thought, or that he did not bother to stop him because he knew he would never become a murderer. I don't think it is logical to thrust Snape's name into the discussion, especially in no uncertain terms, if Dumbledore's aim was to protect Snape. I do agree that explanation 2 is the most straightforward. But in that case, I don't believe that Dumbledore handled his exchange with Draco very wisely. Julie now: I'm not sure Dumbledore was giving anything away. Draco knows Dumbledore believes Snape is on his side, even if Draco thinks Snape is really fooling him. So Dumbledore reinforcing that impression by saying he had Snape watch Draco, and that he trusted Snape, isn't really making any difference, nor endangering Snape. In fact, it could be Dumbledore's way of reinforcing his apparent naivete about Snape, so when Snape kills him that act will reinforce Draco's certainty that Snape is really Voldemort's man. Julie earlier: > I think there is another possibility, especially if > Dumbledore > is dying from the Ring Horcrux. He is running out of > time, > and has to prepare Harry as best he can with > borrowed time > he does have left. That means Harry needs to learn > about > his enemy (so Dumbledore suddenly takes a very > active > teaching role, showing Harry how Tom became > Voldemort), > Harry needs to learn about Horcruxes (so Dumbledore > must > get Slughorn to Hogwarts to access that memory of > his), and > Harry needs to learn about nonverbal spells (so > Dumbledore > gives Snape--the most skilled wizard he has at > hand--the > DADA position). Dumbledore has to do it all this > school year > because he knows he won't be around next school > year. Mira: It is a very good point. I have not thought about it before but yes, it could have been that Dumbledore thought Snape was the best available man for the job so he gave it to him, despite the risk. Except I don't believe that Dumbledore was dying from his hand injury. But even so, time is an important resource and your explanation makes perfect sense. Julie now: Agreed. Even if the Ring horcrux wasn't killing Dumbledore, I suspect Dumbledore already knew he was going after another horcrux (thus his need for Slughorn's memory to verify his belief that more exist). Dumbledore might well have expected the next horcrux curse would kill him-- certainly it would be a strong possibility--thus time is of the essence. Julie earlier: > I'm not sure I see how this proves Dumbledore didn't > > trust Snape. Again, if he figures one way or the > other > Snape will no longer be at Hogwarts, giving him the > DADA position doesn't change that outcome. Mira: Suppose Snape was not given the DADA job, so in principle he could have stayed on for an extra year. Then nothing would have prevented Draco to kill Dumbledore (I believe the headmaster was fully aware of the nature of Draco's mission), and Snape could have persuaded Minerva to open the school for the next year and continue to deliver information to Voldemort about Harry's movements. This, of course, supposing Snape is not entirely ESG. I thought that Dumbledore gave Snape the DADA job this year in order to prevent this outcome from happening. But I concede that your explanation is more satisfying than mine. In which case, we are back to being able to believe that Dumbledore's faith in Snape was as boundless as proffered. Julie now: I don't know about boundless, but whatever *really* made Dumbledore put his trust in Snape, I believe he did trust Snape completely, at least on the issue of helping him with his plan to see Voldemort defeated. After all, what's the point of having a spy that you can't completely trust? It's pretty much an all or nothing proposition. I also think Snape had the opportunity to screw things up royally a million different times and ways through the years if he'd wanted to, not the least of which would be by killing Harry (or letting him die, in the case of PS/SS), but he never did. I just can't quite wrap my mind around Snape waiting until this late moment to take out Dumbledore and return to Voldemort. Why now, instead of when Dumbledore faced death from the Ring horcrux curse, for instance? Julie earlier: > But he also knew Snape was about to kill him, and I > have to believe his words and whatever silent > communication > passed between them also addressed that fact. I don't > think he was telling Snape in so many words to kill > him, > but encouraging Snape to do what *must* be done to > keep > Harry and Hogwarts safe, i.e.--"You must strike the > final > blow. I'm already dying, you can't save me, so you > must save yourself." (And Harry, Hogwarts, Draco, > etc). Mira: All this assumes that Dumbledore knew about the UV. He seems earnest enough to me when he tells Draco that it did not happen, but I would appreciate it if you could point me to some clear clues on the contrary. Julie now: When Harry told Dumbledore about the UV, Dumbledore said he already knew about it, in fact that he knew more than Harry. Now, he might have just been saying that, but I tend to take Dumbledore at his word. And what "more" entails isn't expressly spoken, but I think it's a canon clue that Dumbledore did know the entire contents of Snape's Unbreakable Vow. Not proof, of course, but a clue. I'd include the fact that Dumbledore didn't seem surprised by Snape's appearance on the tower or what was about to happen. If he had been, I think he'd have seemed puzzled, and said something like, "Severus, what's going on?" rather than pleading "Please..." before Snape ever pulled out his wand. That pleading to me seemed to be a supplication for whatever it was he wanted Snape to do (or not do, if one believes Snape was turning on him). No, Dumbledore wasn't surprised at all by Snape's arrival, He already knew what Snape was about to do before Snape even took any action, whether he'd been expecting for weeks that it was coming, or only from the moment he saw the Dark Mark over Hogwarts, indicating the situation had morphed into the dreaded worst case scenario . That's how the scene read to me, anyway. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 1 06:46:07 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 06:46:07 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140996 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: Allie: > I happened notice the Netherlands translation for S.P.E.W. and it comes > out to another funny four-letter toilet word (ahem, not as nice as Poo). Geoff: Ooh er... Well, yes, um.... Hot chocolate anyone? However, I do like the Finnish translation for SPEW which is SYLKY and also their translation for NEWTS - SUPER. The French acronym for NEWTS is also interesting - ASPIC. While Hermione moves SYLKilY around seeking support for her campaign, she is having a SUPER time studying. I think I ought to Finnish at this point before I get shot. :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 1 06:56:56 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 06:56:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140997 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: Alla: > > Again, going back to the first scene, I find Lebeto's example to be > > perfect - Snape punishes Harry for the fact that he did not help > > Neville. Erm... how exactly would it look differently if anybody > else > > would tell us "objective description " of this action? > > > > I mean, sure Draco and Co woul add different adverbs or objectives > to > > it - " how great that Snape did punish that Potter or something > like > > that", but suppose we are asking "neutral" narrator to tell us > about > > this event. Do you think such narrator would be able to put > positive > > spin on Snape's actions here? > > Ceridwen: > I don't know if an objective narrator could. I don't have anything > else other than Harry's POV to go on. Given what we have, no, I > doubt it. But, going back to the broom hexing, I can't allow myself > to be quite so sure about it. It *looks* like a duck, it *quacks* > like a duck, but is it a duck? Geoff: I agree that we are seeing things from Harry's point of view but this incident is not written in reported speech after it happened but as a "real time" event so, if Snape's words are being accurately recorded, then I believe there is no room for a positive spin. From dossett at lds.net Sat Oct 1 04:19:53 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 04:19:53 -0000 Subject: OFH!Snape again. Also - Damage to Dudley (assorted thoughts) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140998 Potioncat: > Now, interesting isn't it. The Foe-Glass shows all three: DD, McG and Snape. Wonder if that will come into play again? And it appears that the Foe-Glass reveals the enemies of the one actually in possesion of it. < Pat now: Wouldn't it be interesting if in Book 7 Harry had possession of the Foe-Glass, and was expecting to see Snape there, but he didn't appear? Just a thought ;-)! ****************************************************************** On another topic: Kathryn wrote: >> What if the Dursleys by some chance they gave Dudley everything so to prevent his latent magical ability? I know this is a strech but it might explain what Dumbledore said to them. << April writes: > But if they did that for Dudley, why did they deprive Harry of everything to squash the magic out of him? If they were trying to do that to Dudley too, it would make sense than the Muggles, not really knowing much magic, only seeing it through Lily, would have treated the boys both the same in hopes that they would squash the magic out of them. Doesn't make sense to treat them differently to get the same effect. < Pat again: Perhaps Vernon and Petunia were *sure* of Harry's wizard-ness, therefore were secure in "squashing it out of him;" whereas, they only *feared* that Dudley might have magical abilities, therefore they spoiled him in the hope that Dudley would never have to try and use magic to get anything - he already had it? Just a thought for fun - I still remain mostly convinced that it will be Petunia that uses magic for the first time in Book 7. She seems most likely to me to be hiding things - might not her own powers be one of those things? Thanks for listening - Pat From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 08:50:58 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:50:58 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: <20050929213147.6650.qmail@web61218.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 140999 > > bboyminn: > > OK, this is old news, I've ranted about this before, but I honestly > don't know why they translate the names. No matter what country I live > in, my name is my name, and that doesn't change. > > Of course, I understand that some names won't have the necessary > impact or implied cleverness in other languages, so I can understand > some name changes. For example, in another language 'Sirius - the Dog > Star' many have another name. In order to make the connection between > Sirius and dogs, his name might need to change. -- > I guess my basic point is that unless there is a compelling reason to > do so, names should not be translated. Finwitch: Well, the Finnish translation leaves some names alone - but many surnames get a translation based on a meaning. You know, like Black - Musta. That's just it - a literal translation. Sirius was left alone. That was a reasonable one as well. No Finnish word ends with two consonants - (ck in this case). Sirius OTOH does fit in with the language structure perfectly. Another such is Sprout-Verso. Again, another literal translation required by the Finnish language. Finnish words may not begin with three consonants, and even two would be a strech. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 09:58:48 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:58:48 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141000 > Hickengruendler: > > It doesn't matter. Fred and George knew very well, that Dudley was on > a diet and would seize every opportunity to eat a candy, as Arthur > rightfully pointed out. Therefore whatever Dudley did, was calculated > by Fred and George. Finwitch: Well, as I said earlier, people on diet are not supposed to eat candy. As for F&G leaving, they didn't even know if Dudley would eat it... (And Vernon/Petunia wouldn't, I suppose). And as for the unseen concequences (DEs at Hogwarts) - well, things like that happen, but only Seers can predict them. Every action, regardless of intention, can have both positive and negative consequences. Anyway, it was entirely possible that Dudley's tongue would have shrunk by itself, or even that the spell wouldn't work at all... I doubt Dudders ever touched Harry's things etc. after that... Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 12:00:02 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:00:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141001 Geoff: > I agree that we are seeing things from Harry's point of view but this > incident is not written in reported speech after it happened but as > a "real time" event so, if Snape's words are being accurately > recorded, then I believe there is no room for a positive spin. Ceridwen: Even as real-time, we only get Harry's perspective. If Harry is doing what he's supposed to be doing, he wouldn't see what's going on with Hermione and Neville full-time. He'd be concentrating on his own potion. No, I don't see how this would be able to be changed. And I doubt if now we'll see anything this peripheral, which apparently is meant to set Snape's character in Harry's and our minds. It's probably just a fun exercise at argument, nothing more. But, the overall argument remains - I am not sure if what I've been shown through the Harry filter, is accurate. I know that at some point, as Alla mentioned, it is. And I know that at other points, it isn't. So, other than what has been proven (broom hexing and other like incidents) to be either wrong or right, I don't know whether I've been given the correct information, or led astray. Until it's proven, I don't know. I can assume, but I can't know. The best I can think is, I'm not supposed to see beyond what Harry thinks, as in a detective story. I'm supposed to think it over for myself, find some objective standpoint, and move on from there if I want to see whether I'm being misled or not. I guess that's what we're all doing, with various theories or 'straightforward readings', getting around the Harry filter. Still, it does leave me off-balance. It seems at times that the narrative is almost first-person, then it steps back (as someone mentioned, to show Harry's flush where he wouldn't have noticed it), or steps between the objective and the extremely personal. I know it's probably just me, other people seem to have latched onto the changes very well. But I do find myself in mistrust of the narrative a good number of times. Ceridwen. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 12:33:13 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 05:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051001123313.38996.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141002 --- Steve wrote: > > Also take note of Arthur's reaction, he doesn't treat this like > attempted murder. He treats it like what it is, a joke; a joke in > poor > taste for sure (as most jokes are), but a joke none the less. He > doesn't seem worried. He seems to understand that there is no > danger. > Of course, I admit that the Dursley don't have anyway of knowing > that > their is no danger, but I seriously doubt that the Twins are > preforming or selling lethal jokes. What Arthur says in front of the Dursleys is to reassure them; when he gets back to the Burrow he has a core meltdown on the twins. He's "angrier than Harry had ever seen him." And he stresses the resemblance of this kind of activity to what he fights every day as a MoM official. And a few chapters later we see other nastier wizards abusing their powers to play jokes on muggles. Not so funny then, is it? Nor am I clear on exactly how Dudley is punished for being a bully by being terrified out of his wits by an engorged tongue. The twins never tie the result to his earlier sins against Harry so that he'd get the message not to bug Harry. If anything it reinforces what Dudley does himself: if you can get away with doing something harmful to someone, go ahead and do it. The only message Dudley takes away from the experience is that wizards have powers to be even bigger bullies than he himself is. I was never really a huge fan of the twins; I especially dislike the way they treated Percy, Ron and Ginny. They reinforce each other and until the Katie Bell incident in OOTP (when they give her the wrong candy and she collapses from blood loss) they seem impervious to others' considerations. The twins redeem themselves of course when they are the first to successfully defy Umbridge and show the other students how to undermine her "authority". Anarchy wins out over authoritarianism every time. But to recap: the twins were way out of line over the toffee. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Oct 1 15:18:00 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:18:00 -0000 Subject: FILK: Tom Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141003 Tom Riddle (HBP, Chap. 13) To the tune of Tom Dooley by the Kingston Trio MIDI here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/midijamboree.html#t DUMBLEDORE (to Harry, spoken).: Throughout history there have been accounts about evil men of humble origin. In this memory, you'll see the story of a Mrs.Cole, an orphanage, and a abandoned boy named Tom Riddle. And in place of an owl, they sent me . DUMBLEDORE and (HARRY) Hang out with us, Tom Riddle At Hogwarts School apply Hang out with us, Tom Riddle Don't act like a tough guy. I met him as an orphan, Living with Ms. Cole Little did I know then That he'd split his soul Hang-ups you have, Tom Riddle You like to thieve and lie (ah-uh-eye) Hang-ups you have, Tom Riddle You made the bunny die I saw his wardrobe, Made it burst in flame "If you a-teach me magic, I'll be mighty glad you came." Hang out (with us) with us (Riddle) and fly Hang out with us and fly (ah poor kid, ah well-ah) Hang out (with us) with us (Riddle), you'll fly Tommy, don't terrify (ah well now boy) Hang-ups (have gone) have gone (Riddle) awry Hang-ups have gone awry (ah poor kid, ah well-ah) Hang- ups (have gone) have gone (Riddle) awry Tommy, don't terrify This Riddle fellow Said, "Don't follow me! Just a-send me toward Diagon, Doing my own shopping spree." Hang-ups you have, Tom Riddle Hang ups out the wazoo (ah-uh-eye) Hang-ups you have, Tom Riddle And now you're You-Know-Who (ah well now guy) Hang-ups you have, Tom Riddle Hang-ups that made you sly (tough luck ah well uh) Hang-ups you have, Tom Riddle You'll be hung out to dry You'll be hung out to dry You'll be hung out to dry You'll be hung out to----dry - CMC (who's been trying to filk this tune since 2001) HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with 40 new filks) From ewetoo at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 10:11:00 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 20:11:00 +1000 Subject: FILK: More Butterbeers Message-ID: <20051001101100.GB12138@4dot0.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141004 What if Imposter!Tonks is wrong? Your HP4GU reporter penguin investigates... More Butterbeers, a filk by ewe2 to the tune of The Police's Driven To Tears (No midi's sorry) Tonks, distrusted by readers and abandoned by Lupin, sits at the Hogs Head drowning her sorrows and declaims drunkenly to the bar in general: Potter readers think I'm somehow responsible Crept the halls of Hogwarts behind Harry Don't they know what love is? Why can't they see? This isn't a Polyjuiced version of me I drink Butterbeers More Butterbeers More Butterbeers Metamorphing's boring, Lupin doesn't care Alone I palely loiter, except for some drunken female house-elf Seems that when a girl's feeling sad All you can do is claim they're some kind of spy Too much opinion and not enough truth It makes me wanna cry In Butterbeers More Butterbeers More Butterbeers Boo-hoo-hoo Boo-hoo-hoo Boo-hoo-hoo It's empty... (Nymphadora and Winky (for it was she) indulge in a knees-up on the table to the raucous cheering of the clientele and a half-blind goblin fiddler playing an erratic solo.) Resistance is futile, Patronuses don't get through What'll happen to Nympho? What is it to you? More Butterbeers More Butterbeers More Butterbeers Eeek! The Womance! Pwecious Ruve! Fish! ewe2, overcome by something in his seawater. -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 15:38:58 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:38:58 -0000 Subject: So... The German Edition is Out. RAS? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141005 Antosha: The German edition of HBP was released yesterday. I've spent the last hour (DOH!) trying to see if there's any mention on the web of the infamous locket--and whether the initials in the note are still RAB or have morphed (as many of us suspect) to RAS: Regulus Arcturus Schwartz. Has anyone here gotten the German edition, or received confirmation of the initials? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 1 15:42:24 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:42:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141006 > Alla: > > Do you think that Snape unwillingly overlooks the fact that Harry was raised a muggle? Because it is strange to me that he would not know, since whole WW knows that Harry is ... well, not being raised in WW. > > I think Snape did it on purpose, knowing whole well that Harry has > no clue about magic yet and have not had ever any exposion to magic after his parents' murder. Just me of course. > Pippin: You're assuming that Harry would have known the answers to Snape's questions if he'd been raised in the WW. But Ron was as stumped as he was, not surprising since draught of living death and the bezoar are NEWT level. It's only Harry's assumption that everyone who's been raised in the WW knows lots of magic already. But in fact they aren't supposed to, though Harry doesn't realize this until the end of his first year. As for knowing that aconite, monkshood and wolfsbane are the same plant, Harry needn't have studied One Thousand and One Magical Herbs and Fungi. They are names for a real plant just as Nicholas Flamel is the name of a real person. Snape was picking on Harry, but he wasn't taking advantage of Harry's ignorance of the wizarding world, just his ignorance in general. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 15:54:46 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:54:46 -0000 Subject: Why must JKR torture us so? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141007 PJ wrote: >Everything I've ever read of Snape, > both in the books and the > interviews the author gives, > show him to be a bad guy through and > through. So, if JKR *says* he's bad > and *writes* him as bad,> where does > the idea of "good Snape" come from? That is an excellent question, I just wish I had an excellent answer, but the fact is I just don't understand why some people still think Snape is good, or had ever thought so for that matter. horridporrid03" Wrote: > Throughout PS/SS he seems so obviously > bad: trying to kill Harry, cheating at > quidditch, threatening poor Professor > Quirrell, forcing students to write > essays, etc. But then the ending comes > and changes everything. Snape wasn't trying to kill Harry Until HBP came out it seemed that Snape saving Harry's life in book 1 was entirely out of character, it was the only good thing Snape did in 6 books. But I think we understand now because we've found out something new, Snape is one of the very few people on the planet who knows that Harry was the only one who had a chance of killing Voldemort. Wanting Voldemort dead does not automatically make you one of the good guys because you may just want to replace him. > Snape wasn't trying to cheat a > Quidditch win for Slytherin I respectfully disagree, it seems very clear to me that as a referee Snape was cheating at Quidditch big time. > JKR is being clever in putting Snape > in the victim role in this particular > scene. She deliberately provokes > sympathy for the dark guy That's true, even I a confirmed Snape hater had some sympathy for the man when I first read the bulling scene in OOTP, but my sympathy evaporated completely at the end of OOTP after the death of Serious; Harry is in a near suicidal depression and Snape CONTINUES to bully the poor boy. In the next book when Snape murdered Dumbledore my sympathy did not increase. Eggplant From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 16:20:22 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:20:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <67.4e4129dd.306f5577@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141008 Julie says: > A lot of us think Snapes a "good guy" because he is on the *side* > of Good, not because there is anything remotely nice about him. > And there is plenty of canon to support that possibility beyond > Dumbledore's trust in him, including Snape saving Harry from > Quirrel, saving Dumbledore from the ring horcrux, saving Katie > Bell from Draco's potion, refusing to brew more veritaserum > for Umbridge, and quite a few other incidents that conflict with > the concept of a unilaterally "bad" Snape. PJ replies: All of that loses value of any kind when I ask myself why Snape has tried 3 times *in canon*(that I can remember) to give Voldy the automatic win... 1) We know from canon that Snape heard at least a part of the prophesy and that if he hadn't handed that nugget of information to LV, Harry's parents might still be alive today. That the plan to rid himself of his nemesis early backfired had nothing to do with Snape's being on the side of good. In fact, if you think about it, the reason Snape has been so snarky to Harry since day one *could* be because Harry had the gall not to die quietly in GH. 2) In CoS he tries to have Harry expelled. (Ch5 pg81 Scholastic) It's canon that once you're expelled your wand is snapped and you aren't allowed to perform magic anymore. So the one person who, according to the prophesy Snape heard with his own ears, can defeat LV is the same person Snape wants expelled and permanently disarmed. Hmmmm..... 3) Add to that the fact that in canon Snape takes the UV and follows through by performing the AK on Dumbledore. Not canon but still suspicious to me is the question of whether Snape made sure Harry would not learn Occlumency even though he knew the reason behind that need. Sorry, but with all this canon to show how Snape has *seriously* undermined the side of good in favor of LV, the fact that he saved Harry's life on the Quidditch field, patched up his boss's hand, helped a student he knew to be "collateral damage" and balked at helping a bossy, overbearing female means nothing to me. It's just not in the same class as the things we know from canon he did against them. PJ From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Oct 1 16:48:35 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:48:35 -0000 Subject: So... The German Edition is Out. RAS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > Antosha: > > The German edition of HBP was released yesterday. I've spent the last hour (DOH!) trying to > see if there's any mention on the web of the infamous locket--and whether the initials in the > note are still RAB or have morphed (as many of us suspect) to RAS: Regulus Arcturus > Schwartz. > > Has anyone here gotten the German edition, or received confirmation of the initials? Hickengruendler: Sirius Black's (and therefore Regulus Black's name as well) is not translated in the German editions. In the very early translations of book 1 he was translated as Sirius Schwarz (without the t, "Schwartz" is a pretty common German surname as well, but the translation for "black" is "schwarz"), but that was changed once he became a major character in book 3. Therefore the initials are of course still R.A.B., because Regulus' surname is Black in the German edition as well. I am sorry that your got hopes up, that the R.A.B. mystery might be solved with the German edition. I expected something like this too happen, that's why I already posted yesterday that the name isn't translated in german. But of course it's impossible to read every post on this page. I don't either. Hickengruendler From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 17:11:34 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:11:34 -0000 Subject: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus/OFH!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141010 > Finwitch: > > Well, the Finnish translation leaves some names alone - but many > surnames get a translation based on a meaning. You know, like Black - > Musta. That's just it - a literal translation. Sirius was left alone. > > That was a reasonable one as well. No Finnish word ends with two > consonants - (ck in this case). Sirius OTOH does fit in with the > language structure perfectly. > > Another such is Sprout-Verso. Again, another literal translation > required by the Finnish language. Finnish words may not begin with > three consonants, and even two would be a strech. > > Finwitch Carol responds: Thanks for a very useful and interesting explanation. But I'm wondering: Does Finnish, like English, use Latin (or Greek/Latin hybrids) for the names of stars and constellations? Would Sirius, for example, suggest Dog Star, and Bellatrix, Draco, Andromeda, Regulus, etc., be recognizable as names of stars or constellations? Or would they just be like Severus and Lucius, recognizable as Latin names but not suggesting astrological or astronomical symbolism? Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 1 17:52:12 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:52:12 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" wrote: > All of that loses value of any kind when I ask myself why Snape has tried 3 times *in canon*(that I can remember) to give Voldy the automatic win... > 2) In CoS he tries to have Harry expelled. (Ch5 pg81 Scholastic) > It's canon that once you're expelled your wand is snapped and you aren't allowed to perform magic anymore. So the one person who, according to the prophesy Snape heard with his own ears, can defeat LV is the same person Snape wants expelled and permanently disarmed. Hmmmm..... > Pippin: If Snape knows as much as you say, then he knows that there isn't the slightest chance that McGonagall or Dumbledore will agree that Harry should be expelled. In any case, it wouldn't have been his fault if they *had* been expelled, since only McGonagall or Dumbledore had the authority. Nor is Snape responsible for all the charges against them. Everyone already knew that Harry and Ron took the Weasley car and that the car was seen by Muggles -- the Ministry was investigating. The only additional accusation Snape made is that they damaged the tree --hardly a serious offense. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 1 17:57:32 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:57:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141012 > Ceridwen: > Sometimes I'm sure Snape and everyone else knew. Other times, I'm > not so sure. Snape made a big enough deal of the 'celebrity', which > would only serve if Harry actually was raised as a celebrity. That > wouldn't happen in the Muggle world, only in the WW. Yet, Snape > works at Hogwarts, is part of the Order, is privy to information > about the students as a member of faculty, and so on. I find it > confusing, more for Snape than for the nameless faceless WW at > large. For them, I doubt if any of them gave too much thought to > where Harry was being raised, they only knew it wasn't in their > neighborhood. Potioncat: The "celebrity" which Snape refers to is the celebrity that Harry discovers at Hogwarts. We're told (I think in the chapter The Potion Master) that students are pointing at Harry, whispering about him, changing their routes to classes to get to see him, etc. Flitwick fell off his chair at Potter's name. So Snape, Grand Lurker that he is, had observed this. That much we can know from only SS/PS. As we get each new book, we can see other possible motivations for Snape's treatment of Harry in that first class, or even at other times in the books. I'm not looking for reasons to justify Snape's behavior, but to explain his actions. > From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 1 18:16:27 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:16:27 -0000 Subject: Evil Patronus - ties into Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141013 (Potioncat, I'm not sure who asked this question:) > > Perhaps this has been discussed before but what evidence is there that > an evil/dark wizard cannot preform a Patronus Charm? I have seen > several arguments/theory that state if Snape can produce a Patronus or > send the order a message via the PMS (Patronus Messaging Service) that > DD invented; it could prove that he is DDM!Snape. > (crypticamoeba gave some information from PoA, quoting Lupin) Potioncat: Just before HBP came out, JKR gave answered a question on her site about Patronuses. She calls them anti-Dark Arts devices. She says the Order would know who sent the Patronus. Only the Order knows how to use the Patronuses in this way. I would cut and paste, but I couldn't get it to work Go to her site, to FAQ, then to the poll for FAQ. I think we should remember, while "we" think the way Snape can prove his loyalty is through his Patronus, that may not be correct. I think his Patronus could prove he is the one sending information. His Patronus form may tell us readers a thing or two. A changed Patronus may tell the Order a thing or two. Personally if I were an Order member, I wouldn't be so certain that he hadn't found a way around the ususal safeguards of a Patronus. I think he's in a big cauldron of trouble! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 18:35:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:35:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141015 > > Potioncat: The "celebrity" which Snape refers to is the celebrity that Harry discovers at Hogwarts. We're told (I think in the chapter The Potion Master) that students are pointing at Harry, whispering about him, changing their routes to classes to get to see him, etc. Flitwick fell off his chair at Potter's name. So Snape, Grand Lurker that he is, had observed this. That much we can know from only SS/PS. As we get each new book, we can see other possible motivations for Snape's treatment of Harry in that first class, or even at other times in the books. > > Alla: Yes, we do and I think it is VERY interesting that with only ONE book left we are still yet to see ANY of those motivations to be correct or to be the motivations of the decent person, IMO only of course. I mean, the one which you just listed, sure , Snape sees all that, but woudn't the decent person make sure BEFORE he did what he did on the first lesson that Harry actually enjoys his celebrity status? It seems like Snape's powers of observation are oddly one sided, no? Isn't it fundamentally unfair to do what Snape did before he observed Harry himself or at least as someone said "compared notes" with his colleagues? > > > Potioncat: > > I'm not looking for reasons to justify Snape's behavior, but to > > explain his actions. > Alla: > > Yes, I understand. Alla wrote earlier: I think Snape did it on purpose, knowing whole well that Harry has no clue about magic yet and have not had ever any exposion to magic after his parents' murder. Just me of course. > > Pippin: You're assuming that Harry would have known the answers to Snape's questions if he'd been raised in the WW. But Ron was as stumped as he was, not surprising since draught of living death and the bezoar are NEWT level. It's only Harry's assumption that everyone who's been raised in the WW knows lots of magic already. But in fact they aren't supposed to, though Harry doesn't realize this until the end of his first year. > Alla: Erm... Okay, so Snape asked Harry the questions, which only NEWT level student was supposed to know. How does it make his behaviour better? If you are saying that nobody would have known the answers anyway, well, the fact of the matter remains that he asked Harry, not anybody else. But I think that Harry's assumption is absolutely correct in a sense that pureblood or half blood kids who live in WW are MUCH more familiar with magic that Harry is. They grew up with magic, Pippin, while Harry did not. The fact that they are not supposed to perform the magic outside the school, does not change the fact that they have seen their parents perform it and aren't the kids who are homeschooled are allowed to perform the magic under supervision of their parents? I am not sure about the answer to this question, but again it is not very relevant to my main argument. I am just saying that Harry is in completely new world, why kids who lived here all their lives are not, their level of familiarity with magic is significantly higher than Harry's. Till few days ago, Harry did not even know what wand is, no? > Pippin: > > > Snape was picking on Harry, but he wasn't taking advantage of > Harry's > > ignorance of the wizarding world, just his ignorance in general. Alla: Personally, I think he was taking advantage of Harry's ignorance of WW, but maybe he was doing both. JMO, Alla From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sat Oct 1 18:55:51 2005 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 14:55:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's bias again, answering several posts Message-ID: <20b.a9416e0.307035b7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141016 In a message dated 10/1/2005 9:44:10 AM Mountain Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: You're assuming that Harry would have known the answers to Snape's questions if he'd been raised in the WW. But Ron was as stumped as he was, not surprising since draught of living death and the bezoar are NEWT level. It's only Harry's assumption that everyone who's been raised in the WW knows lots of magic already. But in fact they aren't supposed to, though Harry doesn't realize this until the end of his first year. Not to mention, considering Snape's knowledge of dark curses at eleven, which probably came from access to what books his mother had, he might have known the answers to those potion related himself when he started his first year. Remember, he implies to Bellatrix he's been evaluating Harry. (If he knows the prophecy, I'm sure he would whatever way his bets lie between Harry and LV.) He's just testing him. As for the nastiness, well, that's just Snape, you know. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 19:12:38 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:12:38 -0400 Subject: Does Snape want Harry to be expelled? WAS: RE: Bullying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141017 Pippin: >If Snape knows as much as you say, then he knows that there isn't the >slightest chance that McGonagall or Dumbledore will agree that Harry >should be expelled. PJ replies: Its not what I say that counts but what canon so clearly tells us happened. We're told point blank in HBP that it was Snape listening at the door when the prophesy was given and that he heard at least a portion of what was foretold. My version of logic says that if he's on the side of light he *wants* LV stopped and knows (heard it himself) that Harry is the one who can do it. So if instead of doing what he can to keep Harry at school he wants him expelled, what does that say about Snapes sympathies? He may well know that there's no way in hell McGonagall or Dumbledore will expel Harry but we can clearly see he still very much *wants* it to happen! (quote) Most unfortunately you are not in my House and the decision to expel you does not rest with me. I shall go and fetch the people who do have that happy power. (end quote). Pippin: In any case, it wouldn't have been his fault if they *had* been expelled, since only McGonagall or Dumbledore had the authority PJ: Yes, that's true but once it's decided that Harry will NOT be expelled we have (quote) Snape looked as though Christmas had been canceled. He cleared his throat and said "Professor Dumbledore, these boys have flouted the Decree for Restriction of Underage Wizardry, caused serious damage to an old and valuable tree -- surely acts of this nature..." (end quote) He's still pushing for expulsion. He wants Harry expelled and he wants him disarmed. Hardly the position a person busily working against Voldemort would take, is it? PJ From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 1 19:26:15 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:26:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: <20b.a9416e0.307035b7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141018 Amber wrote: As for the nastiness, well, that's just Snape, you know. Potioncat: I love it! There need be no more Snape threads. This answers it all-- DDM!, OFH!, ESE!. It answers it all. From anurim at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 20:03:23 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: TBay: SAD ADDLED WHOOP Message-ID: <20051001200324.13669.qmail@web32606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141019 This is my 6285th take on Snape after HBP. I was preparing it when I read Betsy's message mentioning the word 'addicted'. Hopefully this is a good omen and not a sign that the subject has been discussed before, but if it has, could you please direct me to the relevant message? Thank you. And now let the ship be launched. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Surely my brave rum-hardened fellow sailors of TBay fame would have no trouble in confirming this saying. The first timber for my ship is an excerpt from Jo's Interview At Royal Albert Hall, 26 June 2003 (courtesy Lexicon and Quick Quotes Quill): ---- Question from Jackson Long in audience competition winner Jackson: Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against Dark Arts teacher. In book 5 he still hasnt got the job. Why does Prof Dumbledore not allow him to be Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher? JK Rowling: That is an excellent question and the reason is that I have to be careful what I say here. To answer it fully would give a lot away about the remaining two books. When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape said I'd like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so said I think well get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there. ---- Does passion, positive passion, bring out the worst in people? Hardly. Which leads me to the following theory: Snape does not love Dark Arts. He is addicted to them. - Snaps's dedication in learning Dark Magic ("Snape was just this little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts" - Sirius in OotP) - his irritability when he is far from the object of his obsession (any Potion class taught by Snape would make a fine example) - the poverty (Snape is spending his time learning, pondering, inventing, longing, rather than using his talents to prosper; indeed, it could be argued that the sole reason why Snape stayed at Hogwarts, when he hates teaching "a bunch of dunderheads" - Snape in PS - is his fascination with the DADA position) - the isolation, secrecy, carelessness ("Snape-the-teenager had a stringy, pallid look about him, like a plant kept in the dark. His hair was lank and greasy and was flopping onto the table, his hooked nose barely half an inch from the surface of the parchment as he scribbled." - OotP; "Snape had imposed his personality upon the room already; it was gloomier than usual as curtains had ben drawn over the windows, and was lit by candlelight" - the description of Snape's DADA class in HBP) - influence from bad friends (DEs) ... everything fits with the usual warning signs of an addiction. In fact, Dark Arts strike me as a good analogy for drugs. Doing unnatural things, enslaving your body or limiting freedom of choice for others, you gain advantages that 'good' people do not have, or have to obtain by superior skills and sweat. Getting a high. Winning a race unfairily. Generating yourself an addiction. Anybody who has suffered from this condition knows: (1) that staying completely clear of temptation is infinitely easier than enjoying it with measure, and (2) that, despite overwhelming evidence on the contrary, the addict is almost always convinced that it is in their power to keep their habit under control. When teaching Potions, Snape showed severe withdrawal symptoms. According to (2), he wanted the DADA job because he was convinced that he could keep tabs on his Dark Magic, and use his talent for positive endings. Dumbledore, however, was wise enough to believe in (1), hence his determination to keep Snape away from DADA. Dumbledore realised that once he would be in the presence of Dark Magic, Snape would not be able to limit himself to defensive activities. History has known artists who had to be kept away from their instrument lest they went insane or died. Snape is not a singular case. It is not impossible that the real reason why Snape came to Dumbledore was the recognition that he could not handle proximity with Dark Arts and remain himself. Anybody who has witnessed how apparently harmless addictions can destroy the lives of those afflicted would understand why Dumbledore would believe that Snape was ready to leave the Dark Side for good, in exchange for Dumbledore keeping him grounded and away from temptation. In other words, the reason why Dumbledore trusts his Potions master is not that Snape regretted having caused harm to James and Lily, but rather that Snape regretted having caused harm to himself and was afraid he would cause even more. A good reason to believe a Slytherin, probably the best. In GoF, however, Snape had to return to the Dark Side. He still spends most of his time at Hogwarts, so his involvement in the Dark Arts is still harmless enough. Until HBP when Dumbledore was forced to give Snape the DADA chair, because, as Juli told us in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140887, Snape was the best available man for the job, and, at the very least, time meant lives. I have seen a couple of messages that remarked how Harry's perception of Snape changed as the former potions master started to teach DADA (for instance http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140888). But there is also a possibility that it was not Harry who grew up, but Snape who really changed for the good. Why? Simply because he got his DA fix. But a steady dose is never enough for an addict. Snape did not have to take the UV. In no situation would a refusal be brought to Voldemort as proof of Snape's lack of loyality. If the Dark Lord knew that Narcissa and Bellatrix had failed to keep the secrecy when specifically asked to, the one who would be in trouble would not be Snape. In fact, from the moment when the sisters knocked on Snape's door, the whole Malfoy family was put at the mercy of our greasy DA addict. I propose that Snape took the UV either because such a bond belongs in itself to the Dark Arts (and I believe it does!), or thinking that assisting Draco would put him in the position to use a little more Dark Magic. I am sure he neither expected the third provision of the vow, nor realised that he would not be able to disentangle himself from the Dark Arts, once he got into them again. For me, this explains why Snape did not tell Dumbledore about the UV (as I have argued in the thread with subject UV=DDM?). Once again, anybody who has met with addictions knows what a terrible shame they entail, every time the addict has given in to abuse again. As a quote on the movie Les Invations Barbares goes, 'Never believe an addict. They are too used to lying'. This theory can also explain the discussion overheard by Hagrid. Snape realised that he was sinking again, and told Dumbledore that he did not want to suffer exposure to the Dark Arts anymore. Stop teaching DADA, stop spying most likely, perhaps try to find a countercourse for the UV. There might well be such loopholes. Perhaps a vow has to be meant in order to work, same as a spell. Perhaps free will can counteract the effects of the UV. It can override prophesies, so why not bonds? But there is no free will inside an addiction. It was partly Dumbledore's fault that Snape got caught in his addiction once again. There are no doubts (at least in this scenario) that Dumbledore acted for the sake of the good, but he did put Snape in a very delicate position. Snape did not have to perform AK as such, but he was in too deep in already, and, under these assumptions, it is partly understandable that he looked at Dumbledore with hatred. Without doubt, part of Snape's loathing was directed toward himself. Because even if Dumbledore exposed him to his former addiction, I don't think Snape can be left off the hook either, and I am pretty sure he does not believe it himself. Snape had the option to back off from the UV. Whether it was overconfidence (2) or sheer lack of control (1) that made Snape take the UV, his attempt to both indulge in his addiction in Dark Arts and fulfill his obligations to the Order was doomed to fail. Where Harry chooses the good side and Voldemort chooses to be evil, Snape refuses to choose, and eventually this lack of decision puts him in a position from where he does not have any choice anymore. While it is possible for casual users to maintain moderation, dependent persons like Snape are always offered a clear choice, and the more the decision is postponed, the narrower are the options for the future. In conclusion, Snape's behavior does not demonstrate a cold interest in the Dark Arts, but a sheer, uncontrollable dependency. After the UV, after DADA, after AK... which is the next mirage for the Dark Magic aficionados, if not creating a Horcrux? Could it be that Dumbledore begged Snape not to mutilate his soul, to resist the temptation to sink even deeper in Dark Magic? Could it be that Dumbledore pleaded with Snape to allow himself, at least this time, a real choice instead of a corner, and to use it well? I believe it could. Hence: Snape Addicted to Dark Arts; Dumbledore Devilishly yet Luminously Exploits Desperate Weakness for His Own Original Purposes, aka SAD ADDLED WHOOP Mira From anurim at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 19:39:49 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 12:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fwd: [HPforGrownups] Re: UV = DDM? Message-ID: <20051001193949.30967.qmail@web32615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141020 --- juli17 at aol.com wrote: > I'm not sure Dumbledore was giving anything away. > Draco > knows Dumbledore believes Snape is on his side, even > if > Draco thinks Snape is really fooling him. So > Dumbledore > reinforcing that impression by saying he had Snape > watch > Draco, and that he trusted Snape, isn't really > making any > difference, nor endangering Snape. In fact, it could > be > Dumbledore's way of reinforcing his apparent naivete > about > Snape, so when Snape kills him that act will > reinforce > Draco's certainty that Snape is really Voldemort's > man. Mira: If Snape kills Dumbledore than I doubt any reinforcement was needed. Definitely not in front of somebody like Voldemort, who cannot understand that there are worse fates than death. Apart from that, yours is a valid interpretation. However, I fail to see why dropping Snape's name, and more, actually arguing for his allegiance to the good side, was necessary at all. Draco is already convinced that Snape has been faithful to Voldemort and he has an excellent explanation for why Snape is following him (the UV). If Dumbledore knew about the UV, and still brought Snape's name into the conversation, the only coherent explanation I can see now is that Dumbledore was not pleading with Draco, but rather with Harry, to keep trusting Snape. But this interpretation is a little skewed too, because if Dumbledore knew about the UV, he also knew that Snape would kill him soon; if, in these circumstances, Dumbledore wanted Harry to continue to collaborate with Snape, then at least he might have tried to make Harry understand that it was not as much Snape's choice to commit the murder, but that he was forced by the UV, and that him, Dumbledore, was aware of it. So, either way, I don't see this as making much sense. If Dumbledore's words were for Draco then they were completely unnecessary, if they were addressed to Harry then they had the opposite effect than indended. This might not convince you, but for myself, I must conclude that Dumbledore probably did not know about the UV. If so, is there any interpretation that still absolves Snape? I think there is. Please bear with me and I will try to compose it. > Agreed. Even if the Ring horcrux wasn't killing > Dumbledore, > I suspect Dumbledore already knew he was going after > > another horcrux (thus his need for Slughorn's memory > to > verify his belief that more exist). Dumbledore might > well > have expected the next horcrux curse would kill > him-- > certainly it would be a strong possibility--thus > time is > of the essence. Most people assume that destroying a Horcrux somehow damns the person who does it, but frankly, I don't think so. We already have one example on the contrary in cannon: Harry annihilated the diary and no piece of Voldemort's soul jumped on him. The way I read HBP is that Dumbledore injured his hand in his quest to _obtain_ the ring, but that the next step, destroying the Horcrux, was fairly straightforward. I believe that the parts of soul embedded in Horcruxes become one with the object bearing them, so that they cannot survive outside it (and somehow infect a new carrier). > Julie now: > I don't know about boundless, but whatever *really* > made > Dumbledore put his trust in Snape, I believe he did > trust > Snape completely, at least on the issue of helping > him > with his plan to see Voldemort defeated. I will touch this in the longer message I plan to send ... soon. > When Harry told Dumbledore about the UV, Dumbledore > said he already knew about it, in fact that he knew > more > than Harry. Not necessarily. Dumbledore said: 'You might consider the possibility that I understand even more than you did.' This is completely compatible with what he said to Draco on the Tower: Snape would have told Draco that he followed him because he made the UV to his mother, but this was not the truth. > I'd include the fact that Dumbledore didn't seem > surprised > by Snape's appearance on the tower or what was about > to > happen. Well, of course he was not. He was expecting Snape to follow Draco - on his orders... I read the scene the same you did, at first. Now I am not sure anymore. But we are on the same side in wanting Snape a little redeemed, somehow:) Mira From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 20:41:25 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Snape want Harry to be expelled? WAS: RE: Bullying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051001204125.64671.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141021 --- P J wrote: > So if instead of doing what he can to keep Harry at > school he wants him expelled, what does that say about Snapes > sympathies? [SNIP] > > He wants Harry expelled and he wants him disarmed. Hardly the > position a > person busily working against Voldemort would take, is it? If Snape seriously wanted Harry expelled, he'd have arranged it in OOTP; Umbridge would have pounced on any excuse to expel Harry. If Snape is evil, why doesn't he cozy up to Umbridge and give her an excuse? Any excuse? Inventing an excuse? She'd have accepted it. Magda __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 1 20:56:09 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:56:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141022 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Amber wrote: > As for the nastiness, well, that's just Snape, you know. > > > Potioncat: > I love it! There need be no more Snape threads. This answers it all-- > DDM!, OFH!, ESE!. It answers it all. Geoff: Well, there is no commandment saying "Thou shalt read all threads referring to Snape." You are allowed to ignore them - I do 99.75% of the time and the other 0.25%, I wish I had.... :-) From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 1 21:30:05 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:30:05 -0400 Subject: Does Snape want Harry to be expelled? WAS: RE: Bullying In-Reply-To: <20051001204125.64671.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141023 Magda: >If Snape seriously wanted Harry expelled, he'd have arranged it in >OOTP; Umbridge would have pounced on any excuse to expel Harry. If >Snape is evil, why doesn't he cozy up to Umbridge and give her an >excuse? Any excuse? Inventing an excuse? She'd have accepted it. PJ replies: There's no canon for it it either way that I can find but I have a theory. It could be that, knowing Hogwarts itself didn't accept Umbridge as headmaster (she couldn't get into the office) he took a different tactic in OOtP and, rather than make Dumbledore suspicious (again?) he decided baiting Sirius into carelessness would set Harry up pretty good to be LV's pawn. There's always more than one way to get what you want if you're smart enough to figure it out. And Snape is very smart... PJ (3rd post today - all done) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 22:03:41 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 22:03:41 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141024 Hickengruendler: I do not think Molly is that prejudiced, but why was this stupid? Because we know it didn't work in the end. Arthur was open-minded enough to try using some methods, that work very well in the muggle world. I don't find this stupid at all. And it is suggested in Canon (admittingly only through an assumption by Hermione, but we know that Hermione is mostly right in such cases), that there was something in the snake's venom that hept the stitches from working. Meaning it's very well possible that the methods do work for other magical injuries. Though I have to admit I have no idea, why the wizards should use them, if they have much faster healing methods. a_svirn: No, neither do I. Also, it seems to me that suggesting oneself as a test-subject when one's case is not desperate is to carry one's open- mindedness a bit too far. Betsy Hp: Oh, absolutely. It's interesting, to me, that JKR has included this within the Weasley family. Both parents *are* rather old-fashioned in their views on muggles. Arthur has his polite prejudices as well. Though I will say Arthur seems more aware of how easily a wizard can victimize a muggle. I think it's something Molly doesn't even think about. Nor does she want to. That is perfectly illustrated, IMO, after the twins baited Dudley. Arthur tries to make the point that they behaved badly because the played their trick on a muggle. Molly is upset that they played a trick, period. a_svirn: You know I don't quite see what you mean when you say "prejudice". Prejudice implies certain stereotypes, irrational and erroneous assumptions. However, inequality in Rowling's Universe is not an assumption, it's a sad reality. And Arthur is certainly not the only one who's aware of that. It's just that bullies and criminals among wizards go ahead victimizing muggles, while decent people like Arthur try to prevent them from doing so. And conformists don't give a damn and see to their comforts. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 22:17:49 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 22:17:49 -0000 Subject: Pureblood Pretenders and Sorting Hat Was (Re: Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141025 > > > zgirnius: > So do you think the Hat just basically rubber stamps the choices of > the students? They tell it which house they want, and it obliges? > (Or, it selects based on its stated criteria from among the houses a > student considers acceptable, as in Harry's case, since he only > specified "not Slytherin?) > > No, not quite. I think it *presents* them with choices. Probably helps them to make one, if sometimes in a rather sly fashion. Certainly I believe that the Sorting is not just a ceremony but a first serious test for the Hogwarts students ? after all, your choice determines how you spend next seven years. And here anything might come into play: your character traits, your set of values, your phobias and idiosyncrasies. Rumours you've just heard, people you've just met. For instance, I think Pettigrew did not choose Gryffindor because he valued bravery most and certainly not because he was brave himself. On the contrary, he knew himself to be weak, and sought for protection. He probably figured that he just might find it in the House of the Valiant and Chivalrous. And he was not wrong. a_svirn From erikog at one.net Sat Oct 1 22:31:10 2005 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 22:31:10 -0000 Subject: Snape, bias, etc. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141026 This bit of the HBP has been driving me nuts. I operate from the assumption that everything JKR does, she does for a reason; none of the action in the story is "just for the heck of it." Therefore, I want to know why it is that Snape fetches Harry, vs. Hagrid, from Tonks at the Hogwarts gate. (Chapter 8 of the US standard hardback; p. 155 the chapter begins.) Yes, there's a simple time reason--Hagrid's running late to the Feast, as he confirms to Harry later--but, come on. Why is JKR so concerned with Hagrid's timeliness now, that she sends Snape down to the gates and has it explained several times over why Hagrid can't make it and Snape had to go? So I'm looking at this scene to see what we find out here that's so essential to the book that this scene must be included. Let me toss them out: 1.) We have Tonks' discussion of the heightened security now, and characterization of her depression. Still, you could include all that and still have Hagrid meet them at the gate. 2.) We have the story of Harry's nose being fixed by Tonks, and when he gets into the Great Hall, Ron and Hermione carry on about the blood all over him. I remember someone here commented that Snape let a bloodied Harry go past him into the Hall, but we're not sure he even sees the blood on Harry. JKR refers several times to how dark it is (Snape himself is carrying a torch--at the easier arm level, I presume, vs. at the more constantly difficult shoulder height, which would allow him a look at the colors of Harry's face; Harry virtually runs away from Snape once they get into the castle, so we can't establish Snape has really seen the blood) and JKR has Hermione seem bewildered when Harry asks about how his nose looks-- the blood is a give-away that there was a physical alteration, not a substantial change to Harry's profile. So, I'm not at all convinced that what we are meant to get from this section is that a heartless Snape let a bloodied Harry pass by. 3.) Snape demonstrates what seems to be negativity towards Tonks. (I'm being careful with my words here, because there are several ways you could see their encounter, from just plain nastiness, a hatred of showing weakness, or something else. I'm struck by how immediately defensive Snape is to Tonks, assuming first she thinks Harry's not safe with him, an impression not helped when Tonks repeats she wanted *Hagrid*, not Snape, to get the message.) Do we need this encounter in the text to establish Tonks is weak and Snape, at the least, is a thorny character? Onwards. 4.) P. 162, Snape tells Harry he can't wear the Invisibility Cloak. What's really interesting here is not that Snape wants Harry to be *seen* as late (which is in character with Snape's obsession with rules and order), but that Snape doesn't take the chance to take that cloak away! Just like with his potions book, Snape doesn't take a clear chance to take a powerful tool from Harry. Harry needs the cloak for his later adventures, as we know, so maybe JKR just didn't want to detour into Snape taking the cloak/getting the cloak back/etc. If that's the case, again, why is this scene necessary? Why not have Hagrid go back down to get Harry, if the whole point is to get Harry into the castle with his Invisiblity Cloak still in hand? 5.) This is what screams to me to be "the point" of the entire section, because it covers over one full page of text in a scene that runs from 160-162, and for the first time in the text, we see Harry reflecting, in an extended manner, on his emotions about Snape. This, I think, is the point, that Harry's vision of Snape is twisted by a deep, irrational *hatred* of the professor. JKR is all but holding up signs in this section to say, "HARRY ALWAYS THINKS THE WORST OF SNAPE. HE FINDS EMOTIONAL GRATIFICATION IN HATING HIM. HE USES SNAPE AS AN EXCUSE, BECAUSE SNAPE IS NOT A PLEASANT PERSONALITY. HE IS EMOTIONALLY VESTED IN HATING SNAPE." Even before Harry and Snape speak together, "Harry felt as though his body were generating waves of hatred so powerful that it seemed incredible that Snape could not feel them burning him." That's a rather clear statement of Harry's emotions, but JKR goes on: "He had loathed Snape from their first encounter." Now we know that Harry's feelings are a *bias* that have run back to Day One between them. JKR hammers on the point that Harry's feelings about Snape are just that, feelings, powerful and irrational: "Whatever Dumbledore had said," Harry had decided on his own that Snape was complicit in Sirius' murder by his "snide remarks." (Harry does not accuse Snape of seeking to kill Sirius; instead, he accuses Snape of murder on what one must see is a pretty petty charge, that of calling names.) JKR even has Harry subconciously *acknowledge* he's being petty for reasons of personal gratification: "Harry **clung*** (my emphasis) to this notion, because it enabled him to blame Snape, which felt satisfying," and also because he "knew" Snape wasn't sobbing in his pillow over Sirius--ergo, he "deserved" to be accused of murder, in Harry's very emotional line of thought. JKR continues to emphasize the point of how irrational Harry's vision of Snape is by the contrast established between the silent Harry and the suddenly chatty Snape. Snape is, admittedly, being a brat. I use that word because Snape's comments here are not especially deep; he's needling Harry on being late and wearing Muggle clothes, and he brings up past history of Harry crashing the car with Ron during their second year. But let's face the facts: Harry's a student, he's late, and he is wearing Muggle clothes when he should be in his robes. It is reasonable to assume any other student would receive at the least a lecture from any professor at Hogwarts, for showing up in such a state. Harry, while receiving this needling, isn't just angry, as someone unjustly accused might be. He experiences "fury and hatred" that "blazed white-hot." (He also makes it clear he is deliberately refusing to explain himself to Snape.) His "chest might explode" from anger and when they finally get to the Great Hall, he heads off ASAP, "anything to get away from Snape." Is any of Harry's reaction rational here? Would you react in such a way to a professsor who came down to fetch you, with you obviously being unprepared, late, and not giving an explanation? (Given Harry's sullenness here, and the fact he's come late to the first day, I'd be more inclined to be snarky than Snape was!) Granted, Snape's not all sugar and sweetness here- -but is he more likely to annoy/irritate you, or make you near to wishing his murder? (Consider the implications of "burning with hatred" and all those words of loathing and deepest, most passionate hate that JKR uses; Harry's not just ticked off here.) So, anyway, to throw this back out to the larger group-- what do you think about this scene? Krista From lizabet612 at aol.com Sat Oct 1 20:10:49 2005 From: lizabet612 at aol.com (lizabet612 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:10:49 EDT Subject: Could Snape have PTSD??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141027 PJ: He wants Harry expelled and he wants him disarmed. Hardly the position a person busily working against Voldemort would take, is it? Liz: But, IMO, it is vital to remember that Snape may not be dealing with a full deck..... He seems to go between cold detachment when he snips at Harry during lessons, and ignores Neville in HBP in DADA classes and crazed passion - when he lowers himself to fight verbally with Harry or Malfroy and in this example of trying to get Harry expelled. This also explains the difficulty teaching the Occumency - and why that precise memory is in the pensive. IMO he (like Sirus in OTP) keeps forgetting that Harry is not James. That possible - he's reacting like that of an individual with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - According to WEBMD : Symptoms include: Becoming numb. PTSD may make it difficult for you to be in touch with your feelings or express emotions toward other people. For example, you may: * Feel emotionally "numb" and may isolate yourself from others. * Not be interested in activities you once enjoyed. * Think that you will have a shortened life span or will not reach personal goals such as having a career or family. Feeling emotionally tense. You may feel constantly alert after the traumatic event. This is known as increased emotional arousal, and it can cause: * Difficulty sleeping. * Outbursts of anger or irritability. * Difficulty concentrating. * Constantly fearing for your safety. * Becoming overly startled when someone surprises you. * Feelings of intense guilt, especially if you survived when others died. Also Reliving Event and Avoiding similar Situations. This sounds like Snape to me. His swings in moods and actions appear to me to be all tied to hate for James, guilt about James and Lily, Joining the DE, and leaving the DE and anger and sadness at Harry. It is easier to lash out then deal with his feelings and emotions. sorry so long, Liz [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 22:54:31 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 22:54:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141028 Pippin wrote: > You're assuming that Harry would have known the answers to Snape's > questions if he'd been raised in the WW. But Ron was as stumped as he > was, not surprising since draught of living death and the bezoar > are NEWT level. It's only Harry's assumption that everyone who's > been raised in the WW knows lots of magic already. But in fact > they aren't supposed to, though Harry doesn't realize this until > the end of his first year. > > As for knowing that aconite, monkshood and wolfsbane > are the same plant, Harry needn't have studied One > Thousand and One Magical Herbs and Fungi. They are names for > a real plant just as Nicholas Flamel is the name of a real person. > > Snape was picking on Harry, but he wasn't taking advantage of Harry's > ignorance of the wizarding world, just his ignorance in general. Carol responds: I'm not sure that we can judge the extent of Harry's ignorance based on Ron's response, considering that Ron never cracks a book unless he has to. Nor do I think that the two names of one plant and the nature of a bezoar were NEWT-level questions. In fact, Snape answers all three questions with simple sentences. Hermione, a Muggle-born, knew the answers. Quite likely they were in the books assigned to first-years. (Harry did read his books; he just didn't have as much time to complete them as Hermione did given his late birthday; also, he doesn't have her retentive memory.) We don't have the reactions of any students except the ones Harry knows to Snape's questions. I think it quite likely that the Slytherins (Theo, Blaise, and Pansy as well as Draco) knew what a bezoar was. It would be practical information for anyone in the WW (Ron should have known, too), and might even come up in dinner-table conversations in the Malfoy manor. (That's the response Drco laughs at; I'm guessing he knows the answer.) Also, though I'm just speculating here, it's quite possible that the Slytherins knew better than to raise their hand with an answer when Snape was quizzing someone else. And if they didn't, his ignoring Hermione would give them the hint. I think it's important to note that Snape criticized *all* the students for not writing the information down (clearly he thought it was important), and he criticized "almost everyone except Malfoy" when he looked at their potions (SS Am. ed. 139)--Slytherins as well as Gryffindors. He may well like Draco Malfoy, but Malfoy also knows how to stew a slug. From Snape's standpoint, he isn't a "dunderhead." (And he isn't a "know-it-all," either--meaning that he knows when to keep his mouth shut.) I still think that Snape is asking Harry the questions to determine how much, if anything, he knows about magic (questions unrelated to Potions would have been inappropriate) and to sound out his attitude. (Does he have Lily's knack for Potions? Does he have James's arrogant attitude? Is he, just possibly, the Dark Lord in the making that Lucius Malfoy and friends suspected?) Without question, he uses the opportunity to poke a hole in the balloon of Harry's celebrity status, but he may have had good reason for doing so. He may not want the future destroyer of Voldemort running around taking James Potter-style risks for the fun of it or hexing people "just because he can." Best to keep him humble--and alive. And quite possibly he's deliberately trying to make Harry look mediocre in front of the Slytherins, some of them children of DEs, so that they won't realize the threat Harry poses. He's still using the same strategy with Bellatrix in "Spinner's end." BTW, someone in another thread expressed the idea that expelling a student necessarily results in having the student's wand broken. Do we know that for a fact? Hagrid's wand is broken because he has supposedly released a monster into the school, resulting in the death of one student and danger to all the others. Harry's trial by the Wizengamot for using magic in front of a Muggle is clearly not standard procedure--Fudge, probably influenced by Umbridge, is making a misdemeanor into a felony. Under normal circumstances, expulsion would be handled by the Headmaster and the Head of House. The MoM would not be involved. (Even if Draco had been expelled for endangering fellow students and trying to kill the Headmaster, I don't think that Dumbledore would have broken his wand. But if he's tried by the MoM for attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and casting an Imperius Curse, I'm pretty sure *they'll* break his wand before sending him to join his father in Azkaban.) I doubt very much that if Harry and Ron had been expelled for arriving in the Flying Ford Anglia (as Snape surely knew they would not be) that their wands would have been broken. (Well, Ron's was broken, anyway, but I mean broken as part of a ban on performing magic.) They would simply have been denied the status of fully qualified wizards. Carol, hoping she hasn't muddied the waters by mixing up too many topics in one post From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 23:04:05 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:04:05 -0000 Subject: Could Snape have PTSD??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141029 > Liz: > > IMO he (like Sirus in OTP) keeps forgetting that Harry is not James. That > possible - he's reacting like that of an individual with Post Traumatic Stress > Disorder - > > According to WEBMD : Symptoms include: > > Becoming numb. PTSD may make it difficult for you to be in touch with your > feelings or express emotions toward other people. For example, you may: > * Feel emotionally "numb" and may isolate yourself from others. a_svirn: It's not like we know anything about his emotions. > Liz: > * Not be interested in activities you once enjoyed. a_svirn: Such as? >Liz: > * Think that you will have a shortened life span or will not reach > personal goals such as having a career or family. a_svirn: Which is probably a fairly accurate estimate. >Liz: > Feeling emotionally tense. You may feel constantly alert after the traumatic > event. This is known as increased emotional arousal, and it can cause: > * Difficulty sleeping. a_svirn: He seemed to overcome it in HBP. >Liz: > * Outbursts of anger or irritability. > * Difficulty concentrating. a_svirn: Does he have one? I never noticed. >Liz: > * Constantly fearing for your safety. a_svirn: Well, he should. >Liz: > * Becoming overly startled when someone surprises you. a_svirn: Do you mean the Shrieking Shack episode? >Liz: > * Feelings of intense guilt, especially if you survived when others > died. a_svirn: Sounds more like Sirius to me. >Liz: > Also Reliving Event and Avoiding similar Situations. > a_svirn: A healthy attitude, I'd say. At least, the second part. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 1 23:54:17 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:54:17 -0000 Subject: Snape, bias, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141030 Krista wrote: > I want to know why it is that Snape fetches Harry, vs. Hagrid, from Tonks at the Hogwarts gate. > > So I'm looking at this scene to see what we find out here that's so essential to the book that this scene must be included. Let me toss them out: > This is what screams to me to be "the point" of the entire section, because it covers over one full page of text in a scene that runs from 160-162, and for the first time in the text, we see Harry reflecting, in an extended manner, on his emotions about Snape. This, I think, is the point, that Harry's vision of Snape is twisted by a deep, irrational *hatred* of the professor. JKR is all but holding up signs in this section to say, "HARRY ALWAYS THINKS THE WORST OF SNAPE. HE FINDS EMOTIONAL GRATIFICATION IN HATING HIM. HE USES SNAPE AS AN EXCUSE, BECAUSE SNAPE IS NOT A PLEASANT PERSONALITY. HE IS EMOTIONALLY VESTED IN HATING SNAPE." > > Even before Harry and Snape speak together, "Harry felt as though his body were generating waves of hatred so powerful that it seemed incredible that Snape could not feel them burning him." > That's a rather clear statement of Harry's emotions, but JKR goes on: > "He had loathed Snape from their first encounter." Now we know that Harry's feelings are a *bias* that have run back to Day One between them. JKR hammers on the point that Harry's feelings about Snape are just that, feelings, powerful and irrational: "Whatever Dumbledore had said," Harry had decided on his own that Snape was complicit in Sirius' murder by his "snide remarks." > (Harry does not accuse Snape of seeking to kill Sirius; instead, he accuses Snape of murder on what one must see is a pretty petty charge, that of calling names.) > JKR even has Harry subconciously *acknowledge* he's being petty for reasons of personal gratification: "Harry **clung*** (my emphasis) to this notion, because it enabled him to blame Snape, which felt satisfying," and also because he "knew" Snape wasn't sobbing in his pillow over Sirius--ergo, he "deserved" to be accused of murder, in Harry's very emotional line of thought. > > Snape is, admittedly, being a brat. I use that word because Snape's comments here are not especially deep; he's needling Harry on being late and wearing Muggle clothes, and he brings up past history of Harry crashing the car with Ron during their second year. But let's face the facts: Harry's a student, he's late, and he is wearing Muggle clothes when he should be in his robes. It is reasonable to assume any other student would receive at the least a lecture from any professor at Hogwarts, for showing up in such a state. > > Harry, while receiving this needling, isn't just angry, as someone unjustly accused might be. He experiences "fury and hatred" that "blazed white-hot." (He also makes it clear he is deliberately refusing to explain himself to Snape.) His "chest might explode" from anger and when they finally get to the Great Hall, he heads off ASAP, "anything to get away from Snape." > > Is any of Harry's reaction rational here? > > So, anyway, to throw this back out to the larger group-- > what do you think about this scene? > Carol responds: I think you've answered your own question beautifully. Harry *is* overreacting to what (for Snape) is relatively mild behavior. I also think your point that Snape know about the invisibility cloak but doesn't confiscate it is well taken. (I won't get into side issues like why Snape responds to a message intended for Hagrid or Tonks's changed Patronus, but I admit to still being confused by them.) To get back to Harry--I think what we're seeing here is his unresolved anger at himself for his role in Sirius Black's death. In OoP we have the narrator stating (from Harry's POV): "He would never forgive Snape. Never." That statement stood out to me the moment I read it as an example of the unreliable narrator making an assertion that would eventually be contradicted, along the same lines as all the "he was going to die from the pain" statements in the various books but not so immediately corrected. Why? Because he's so obviously projecting his own guilt onto Snape, in this case unfairly. Snape's taunting of Sirius (a fully grown man) did not result in Sirius's death. It was his own decision to go to the MoM (when Snape had specifically told him not to); and it was Bellatrix, not Snape, who killed him. But Harry has never really faced up to the situation. He can't admit to himself that if he had paid attention to Hermione and questioned the supposed vision, examining its inherent unlikelihood and the possibility that it was a trap, Sirius would be alive. So much more satisfactory to scapegoat Snape, against whom he already holds so many grudges. So this scene informs us that Harry still blames Snape for Sirius's death and for that reason, and perhaps others, refuses to see Snape rationally. Any dim hope for an understanding between the two of them has been lost, first through Harry's unauthorized exploration of Snape's Pensieve memory and Snape's explosive reaction and now through the scapegoating. (Someone mentioned PTST in relation to Snape. It seems to fit *Harry* here.) And of course the situation becomes still worse with Harry's discovery that Snape was the spy who told Voldemort about the Prophecy, which occurs at just the wrong moment. There's no time to talk about it or to compare Trelawney's version with Dumbledore's (they don't match; why not?). Instead, they have to go rushing off to hunt Horcruxes. The set-up is perfect for Harry to witness the death of Dumbledore and think absolutely the worst of Snape. But as your reading of this chapter shows, Harry may just be wrong in his judgment of Snape-- especially given that Harry again will have a hard time facing the truth about his own role in a beloved father figure's death. Carol, wondering what to make of the chapter title ("Snape Victorious") From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 00:00:24 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 00:00:24 -0000 Subject: So... The German Edition is Out. RAS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141031 > Hickengruendler: > > Sirius Black's (and therefore Regulus Black's name as well) is not > translated in the German editions. In the very early translations of > book 1 he was translated as Sirius Schwarz (without the t, "Schwartz" > is a pretty common German surname as well, but the translation > for "black" is "schwarz"), but that was changed once he became a > major character in book 3. Therefore the initials are of course still > R.A.B., because Regulus' surname is Black in the German edition as > well. > > I am sorry that your got hopes up, that the R.A.B. mystery might be > solved with the German edition. I expected something like this too > happen, that's why I already posted yesterday that the name isn't > translated in german. But of course it's impossible to read every > post on this page. I don't either. > > Hickengruendler Danke schon! I should have checked further... Oh, well. I know that it IS translated in a number of other languages. We'll just have to wait--as we did for Blaise's gender. ;-) From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 1 23:37:12 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 19:37:12 -0400 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) References: Message-ID: <019601c5c6e1$0d0e2820$b3b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141032 > Hickengruendler: > > I do not think Molly is that prejudiced, but why was this stupid? > Because we know it didn't work in the end. Arthur was open-minded > enough to try using some methods, that work very well in the muggle > world. I don't find this stupid at all. And it is suggested in Canon > (admittingly only through an assumption by Hermione, but we know that > Hermione is mostly right in such cases), that there was something in > the snake's venom that hept the stitches from working. Meaning it's > very well possible that the methods do work for other magical > injuries. Though I have to admit I have no idea, why the wizards > should use them, if they have much faster healing methods. > > a_svirn: > > No, neither do I. Also, it seems to me that suggesting oneself as a > test-subject when one's case is not desperate is to carry one's open- > mindedness a bit too far. Magpie: I still don't see how it's carrying anything too far. Wizards don't use stitches because they can just re-grow the skin back together magically. Since this wound refuses to heal through their means I don't see what's weird about trying to stitch it together and let it grow together in the mundane way. Nothing else was working, stitches were a perfectly logical approach to the problem--I mean, stitches are the thing that actually works in real life. It's possible they work on wizards as well if they cut themselves on a knife or something (so there's no magical venom to dissolve them or whatever) and it's not like Arthur was in any danger from stitches. a_svirn: You know I don't quite see what you mean when you say "prejudice". Prejudice implies certain stereotypes, irrational and erroneous assumptions. Magpie: I think it implies responding to a person as their race/religion/ethnic group (whatever that means to you) instead of as a person and not seeing them as an equal because of that. Muggles lack certain physical abilities that wizards have. Sometimes Wizards marry them, even, and hopefully within marriage they're treated with equal respect. They're exactly the same as a Squib, who in an ideal society would be treated as a valuable person, despite not being able to do Magic, imo. -m From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sun Oct 2 01:12:20 2005 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 01:12:20 -0000 Subject: Wording in translations (Was: So... The German Edition is Out. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141033 Hickengruendler explained: Sirius Black's (and therefore Regulus Black's name as well) is not translated in the German editions. >>SNIP<< antoshachekhonte answered: Danke schon! I should have checked further... Oh, well. I know that it IS translated in a number of other languages. We'll just have to wait--as we did for Blaise's gender. ;-) --- Inge now: The Blacks are the Blacks in danish translations, too, so no help there when the book comes out in denmark in a few weeks. There's one other wording Im curious about as far as the translation is concerned, though. In danish we don't have a single word translating "please" (as would in german be "bitte"). In danish you'll have to add words to make that phrase make sense. In english you need only one word (please) to describe asking for something to be done - or not to be done. The word can stand alone. In danish we dont have such a stand-alone one- word to cover "please" . Im thinking of Dumbledore's "Severus...please" in the towerscene of course. The danish version will have to put either "Severus...g?r det" (Severus, please do it) or "Severus... g?r det ikke" (Severus, please don't do it). Now I don't know if the danish translater will know (or has to guess) about which one to use - but Im curious as to the choise of wording there. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Oct 2 01:55:48 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 01:55:48 -0000 Subject: Wording in translations (Was: So... The German Edition is Out. ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > Inge now: > is concerned, though. > In danish we don't have a single word translating "please" (as would > in german be "bitte"). In danish you'll have to add words to make > that phrase make sense. In english you need only one word (please) to > describe asking for something to be done - or not to be done. The > word can stand alone. In danish we dont have such a stand-alone one- > word to cover "please" . > Im thinking of Dumbledore's "Severus...please" in the towerscene of > course. > The danish version will have to put either "Severus...g?r det" > (Severus, please do it) or "Severus... g?r det ikke" (Severus, please > don't do it). > Now I don't know if the danish translater will know (or has to guess) > about which one to use - but Im curious as to the choise of wording > there. Could they translate it to "Severus... please help" ? That wouldn't really tell us much one way or the other, so that would be one way for them to keep it neutral. (It could mean, "please help me die" "please help me survive" "please help Harry, who is hidden behind the door in his invisibility cloak, escape from here unharmed" etc...) Allie From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 2 02:29:35 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 02:29:35 -0000 Subject: Source of the Portraits (Literary influences on JKR) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141035 I was reading "Persuasion" by Miss Jane Austen, an act of improvement upon my mind, with the intent to train myself in the proper manner of speech and deportment; when I lost all control and began to whoop and jump up with such a degree of agitation as to call out the entire population of my household; not so great a number as we do not maintain a full staff of servants, not even a cook or maid... erm...that is to say...I was reading about the shocking changes in the Musgrove parlour, and it isn't at all important that I couldn't quite figure out what was so shocking...when I came to this part: Oh! Could the originals of the portraits against the wainscoat, could the gentlemen in brown velvet and the ladies in blue satin have seen what was going on, have been conscious of such an overthrow of all order and neatness! The portraits themselves seemed to be staring in astonishment. Do you suppose Miss Austen gave our Ms. Rowling the idea for conscious portraits? JK as in "Jay Kay!" is the current slang for "just kidding". Given our views of some of JKR's writing and some of her interviews, I think Just Kidding Rowling is an appropriate name! And as this post is so dangerously close to being OT, I won't mention the rumor that yet another cast member from Sense and Sensibility is being considered for HP and TMTMNBN. And as that is also by Jane Austen, this post has come full circle. Potioncat, going off to iron shirts and hands. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 2 03:39:02 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:39:02 EDT Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons Message-ID: <1a6.4070e8ae.3070b056@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141036 Julie says: > A lot of us think Snapes a "good guy" because he is on the *side* > of Good, not because there is anything remotely nice about him. > And there is plenty of canon to support that possibility beyond > Dumbledore's trust in him, including Snape saving Harry from > Quirrel, saving Dumbledore from the ring horcrux, saving Katie > Bell from Draco's potion, refusing to brew more veritaserum > for Umbridge, and quite a few other incidents that conflict with > the concept of a unilaterally "bad" Snape. PJ replies: All of that loses value of any kind when I ask myself why Snape has tried 3 times *in canon*(that I can remember) to give Voldy the automatic win... 1) We know from canon that Snape heard at least a part of the prophesy and that if he hadn't handed that nugget of information to LV, Harry's parents might still be alive today. That the plan to rid himself of his nemesis early backfired had nothing to do with Snape's being on the side of good. In fact, if you think about it, the reason Snape has been so snarky to Harry since day one *could* be because Harry had the gall not to die quietly in GH. Julie says: You can interpret it that way if you like. But canon (if we take Dumbledore's word) also says that Snape didn't know who the prophecy referred to, thus he was never *planning* to rid himself of his nemesis. Canon also states that Snape told Dumbledore of the prophecy before GH, which gave Dumbledore the opportunity to put the Potters into hiding (at which point, one could argue, Snape absolved himself of much of the responsibility for James and Lily's deaths, since he made a sincere effort to prevent it from happening. Thereafter it was largely Peter's fault for revealing the hiding place, though ultimately only Voldemort actually committed murder). Snape also implied he warned James himself about Voldemort and about Sirius as secret-keeper, so again Snape made what he *thought* was a sincere attempt to save the Potters (even if James didn't believe Snape, and Sirius wasn't actually the betrayer). Again, you can go with your idea that Snape was angry Harry didn't die with James and Lily, but that takes a lot more twisting of canon than the straightforward reading that Snape tried to save the Potters. PJ: 2) In CoS he tries to have Harry expelled. (Ch5 pg81 Scholastic) It's canon that once you're expelled your wand is snapped and you aren't allowed to perform magic anymore. So the one person who, according to the prophesy Snape heard with his own ears, can defeat LV is the same person Snape wants expelled and permanently disarmed. Hmmmm..... Julie: Snape tried to have Harry expelled half a dozen times, though I have no doubt he knew very well Dumbledore wasn't about to do such a thing, particularly not for the minor things Snape always cited, like being spotted in the flying Ford (though McGonagall was equally white-lipped over that episode). Snape's not stupid enough to think Dumbledore would actually expelled the Boy Who Lived and is expected to save the WW, unless it is for doing something truly bad. Which makes it more interesting that the one time Snape would have had an *extremely* good case against Harry (when he almost killed Draco) Snape made no effort to get him expelled? Carol also mentioned how Snape could have supported Umbridge's desire to see Harry expelled, yet he never once did in OotP. Methinks this was just one more way Snape stressed Harry tendency to get into trouble, whether it was out of pure dislike for Harry, or an effort to show Dumbledore that Harry wasn't so great (the old jealousy thing) or because Snape thought the tactic would intimidate Harry into changing his behavior, I don't know. Maybe all three. In any case, I think this is a pretty weak argument for Snape trying to give Voldemort an "automatic win," given that it had as much chance of working (which Snape well knew) as I have of learning to fly a broom. PJ: 3) Add to that the fact that in canon Snape takes the UV and follows through by performing the AK on Dumbledore. Not canon but still suspicious to me is the question of whether Snape made sure Harry would not learn Occlumency even though he knew the reason behind that need. Julie: Sorry, but this again isn't much of an argument. We have no proof Snape *made sure* Harry would not learn Occlumency. Not even much evidence in support. He actually made a pretty good effort with Harry at first, even if his methods were of questionable worth, and he even backhandedly complimented Harry's performance for the very first time. It all fell apart later, and Snape may have gladly taken the opportunity to stop teaching Harry (who was making very little effort anyway), but he did try at first. Also, it's interesting that JKR blamed Harry's failure to learn Occlumency not on Snape, but on Harry's own personality--his inablility to hold his emotions in check (which in itself isn't a failure, but does preclude Harry from becoming a good Occlumens). The Tower scene and Snape's AK remain shrouded in doubt. Yes, we know what Harry *saw*, and what we saw through him, but we have no idea what Dumbledore or Snape were thinking, what conversations they may have had before the Tower scene that might be relevant, or if they communicated by Legilimency right before Snape's AK. We can't even be sure if it was an AK, or if there was more than one spell at work. Nor do we know for certain the exact state of Dumbledore's health-- dying throughout the book, dying from the cave Horcrux curse, still able to be saved by the right antidote or time for the antidote has expired, in danger of turning into an Inferi from the lake water, even faking the whole thing! Some of those seem more likely than others, of course, but the bottom line is that we just don't know for sure. Until we do know more facts about both Snape's intentions and Dumbledore's state of mind/health, we're left with a scene that may ultimately support Snape as DD's man just as well as it could support Snape as ESE or OFH. PJ: Sorry, but with all this canon to show how Snape has *seriously* undermined the side of good in favor of LV, the fact that he saved Harry's life on the Quidditch field, patched up his boss's hand, helped a student he knew to be "collateral damage" and balked at helping a bossy, overbearing female means nothing to me. It's just not in the same class as the things we know from canon he did against them. Julie: I agree that saving Harry's life is not in the same class as repeatedly asking Dumbledore to expel Harry. Very obviously, saving Harry's life is an act of a far higher order. And he didn't *patch* up Dumbledore's hand, he saved Dumbledore's life with a skill that very few wizards possess, at a very critical moment when he could have easily let Dumbledore die and no one would have been the wiser. (Same with Harry during the Quidditch match, BTW). Snape has saved half a dozen lives (perhaps several dozen, if he deliberately the DEs out of Hogwarts before they could overpower and kill the various students and Order members still fighting them). If Snape turns out to be ESE or even OFH, these may prove to be self-serving moments, but if he turns out the be DDM, then these all become supportive moments, showing Snape risking himself and making an effort he wasn't obligated to make to save lives. Odd how that works, but it does work that way. Whether Snape turns out ESE, OFH or DDM, canon will support it! What really matters is Snape's state of mind as he does these things. And *that* remains a mystery, a very critical one the story, I might add. In closing (see, I'm almost done!), I believe everyone has the right to interpret events and characters as they see fit, i.e., however it works best for each of us. But I wish we could all agree that canon, which JKR has made more conflicting about Snape than any other character, does not conclusively support any one single view, and very much *deliberately* so on JKR's part. Julie (who does not expect all of her own interpretations of characters and events to be accurate once Book 7 is released, maybe only a quarter of them--which would be better than I did with Book 6!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 03:48:58 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 03:48:58 -0000 Subject: Does Snape want Harry to be expelled? In-Reply-To: <20051001204125.64671.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141037 > P J wrote: > > So if instead of doing what he can to keep Harry at > > school he wants him expelled, what does that say about Snapes > > sympathies? [SNIP] > > Magda wrote: > If Snape seriously wanted Harry expelled, he'd have arranged it in > OOTP; Umbridge would have pounced on any excuse to expel Harry. If > Snape is evil, why doesn't he cozy up to Umbridge and give her an > excuse? Any excuse? Inventing an excuse? She'd have accepted it. Saraquel: A while ago I posted a long OFH scenario which examined Snape's behaviour over the course of the books. I think that Snape goes on his own journey and his attitudes and possibly his allegances, shift and change as the years go by. Up until GoF, although Voldemort is around, he is not a palpable threatening power. Harry sends him back to Vapormort at the end of PS and in CoS, it is the memory of Riddle that Harry deals with. Voldemort doesn't really feature in PoA - only with GoF does Snape see signs that Voldemort's power is returning as a real threat, as the dark mark on his arm starts to light up and falsh neon. To me it is feasible that in the first three books, Snape is more concerned with vengeance than with Voldemort. Voldemort is not a direct threat either to the WW or to Snape in the form of vapormort. It is after Voldemort is reborn and Snape returns to his spying activities, that IMO, his attitude to Harry begins to change. Now Snape has some vested interest in Harry acquiring some advanced magic tricks to defeat Voldemort. I think that we cannot assume that Snape has not changed the way he thinks and acts over the books. That he is essentially the same character in HBP as he is in PS would be a mistake in thinking, IMO. To me the battle which Snape is having for his own soul starts with his distress in GoF - when he is faced with the very real possibility that Voldemort will return, and that he will have to take sides. When Voldemort wasn't on the scene except as Vapormort, being, or appearing to be, on DDs side was easy to do, it involved nothing from him except compliance on a fairly superficial level, and in return he got a good job and DDs protection. He was not obliged by external circumstances to examine whatever conscience he might have lurking under the curtains of his greasy hair. I think that the essence of Snape's character is his internal divisions which pull him in opposite directions, and which have finally pulled him apart. To me Snape's love affair with the dark arts is an academic, theory laden love. I am not saying that he does not desire to practise them, only that his love stems from the beauty of the theory. Mathematicians and theoretical physicists usually have a very aesthetic sense about thoeries. For instance, one mathematical journal asked everyone to vote on which theory they thought was the most beautiful. Whereas DD, IMO, sees only the practical danger of the dark arts, and refuses to consider them at all. The question is, is the theory itself essentially evil, or is it only the uses that it is put to by evil people, that make it evil. For instance, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the current round of terrorism are all done in the name of religion. Is Communism in itself evil, or is it the way that it is interpreted and put into practise that is evil? This is why, IMO, Snape continued to lust after the Dark Arts post and why DD continued to deny it to him. There is an argument to say that eventually DD thought that he could no longer hold Snape's hand over this one, and gave him the Dark Arts post to force Snape to confront this aspect of himself. In order for Snape to become truly, totally, trustworthy in DDs eyes, DD had to know tht Snape could deal with his addiction. Was he able to order an orange juice in the pub? I think it is very hard for Snape to see dark arts per se as evil, hence his ongoing temptation and struggle. The return of his dark mark, IMO, forced Snape to reflect on what the dark arts mean in practise. I think that Snape has finally chosen - I do think that he is on Harry's side and will show himself to be that in book 7. That doesn't mean that I think Snape is good, I think he is evil on the side of good. He thinks too much about the beauty of theory and not enough about the beauty of people. Saraquel From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 2 04:49:28 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 04:49:28 -0000 Subject: Could Snape have PTSD? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141038 It's remarkable that Harry isn't suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after all the hell he's been through, but Snape? All Snape has experienced is that minor little bullying incident many years ago; and if something like that can send him into a lifetime emotional funk then he is quite a wimp. Harry is made of stronger stuff. Eggplant From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 2 04:57:14 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 04:57:14 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <20050930140255.24499.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141039 > Valky wrote: > > > May I politely suggest that perhaps your own interpretation is > > slightly coloured by a determination to believe that Snape is an > > angel? > > > And may I politely respond that I have never claimed that Snape is > an angel? In fact, anyone who's carefully read my posts over the > years would see that I never implied or stated any such thing. > > People who find Snape objectionable seem to feel very threatened by > those of us who find him a deeper character who still has a lot of > information and backstory to impart. > > Magda > Valky: I am sorry Magda, I have to ask for clarification, it seems to me *not* finding Snape objectional would be somewhat akin to implying he is angel. For me personally, yes I am happy to admit, There is plenty that is objectional about Snape. Enough, I suppose, to support on fine thread the supposition that he hs 'done bullying' before he became a teacher. I wouldn't personally go as far as to say he was an out and out bighead jerk, though, seems James covered that angle well enough for us already OTOH I take Sirius word as truth and he's made some accusations of Snapes youthful character which don't paint a pleasant picture. It implies to me that Snape had an underhand malicious nature even as a youngster, the kind, I think, is demonstrated by his acts of sabotage on Harry's potions efforts, and his determination to bring full force of the most exrtreme or insidious punishment that comes to his mind on anyone he personally disapproves of, for example in POA when he tells Sirius and Lupin he won't take them to the castle but both straight to the dementors to get kissed. I absolutely disagree with the notion that his backstory will reveal he never used this kind of praetorian tactics as a young man, and that he was *just* a lonely geek boy that minded his own business all the time a'la pensieve. I totally believe he was *always* like this. I believe honesty is Sirius' strong point, not Snape's. Snape has strong points definitely, but he's not an open book like Sirius is, so it's entirely likely that Snape is the one who is hiding in terms of his responsibility for the feud with James. However, I also agree with Betsy, that its the Hatfields vs. McCoys, and the first punch was lost long ago in a forgotten flurry of punches. So it doesn't make a whole lot of difference anymore. The fact that Snape stubbornly maintains his perfect innocence and victim status, while characters for whom genuine truth and honesty is a *really* big deal like Albus 'my memory is as good as it ever was' Dumbledore and Sirius 'served him right' Black, disagree with him, hints strongly at me that they are the ones who understand best that it is a Hatfields and McCoys affair now and Snape is yet to grow up that much. Valky From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Oct 2 05:07:20 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:07:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The cave potion and soul pieces (Re: OFH! Snape again ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002201c5c70f$2be916a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141040 Jen I guess my reluctance to think the soul piece is inside DD is feeling undecided about DD dying throughout HBP. I really don't see signs he's weakening before the potion. If anything he seems more energetic. Harry never sees flashes of anyone behind Dumbledore's eyes like DD saw in Harry's eyes when Voldemort was in there. So I'm still up in the air on this one. Jen Sherry: The problem with the idea of the soul piece possessing the person who destroys it is that Harry was not possessed by tom Riddle's diary. Ginny was possessed by the memory, but she didn't destroy the diary. Harry suffered no ill effects and certainly did not die from it. sherry From anurim at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 02:48:02 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 19:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Forbidden Education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051002024802.32817.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141041 samwise_the_grey: > And really, that's the appeal. People WANT to learn despite the > danger. Jews educated themselves in the ghettos. Not only because > they wanted knowledge but because it was a way to quietly rebel > against the Nazis and gave them a sense of normalacy. Kids go to > school, therefore I will go to school because I'm a kid. They > saved themselves psychologically. And in (some?) Communist camps each prisoner would secretly teach his cell-mates something, whatever he happened to know best. Knowledge not only empowers but softens, straightens and humanises. It might not be an accident that Lupin is the only werewolf on the side of good (sorry, ESE!Lupin shippers...), since he was the only werewolf who was allowed access to education. Thus Dumbledore's legacy lives on... Mira From anurim at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 02:49:23 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 19:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Horcrux at Hogwarts Message-ID: <20051002024923.35042.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141042 The possibility that at least one Horcrux was placed at Hogwarts has been discussed recently. It might or it might not be relevant, it probably was discussed already anyway, but it just occured to me that when Tom was a shop assistant in B&B, he might have had access to Hogwarts through the pair of Vanishing Cabinets (supposing they are old enough). Mira __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 05:27:36 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 05:27:36 -0000 Subject: Snape, bias, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "krista7" wrote: > This bit of the HBP has been driving me nuts. > I operate from the assumption that everything JKR does, > she does for a reason; none of the action in the story is > "just for the heck of it." Therefore, > I want to know why it is that Snape fetches Harry, vs. Hagrid, > from Tonks at the Hogwarts gate. (Chapter 8 of the > US standard hardback; p. 155 the chapter begins.) Yes, there's a > simple time reason--Hagrid's running late to the Feast, as he > confirms to Harry later--but, come on. Why is JKR so > concerned with Hagrid's timeliness now, > that she sends Snape down to the gates and has it > explained several times over why Hagrid can't make > it and Snape had to go? > > So I'm looking at this scene to see what we find out here that's so > essential to the book that this scene must be included. Let me toss > them out: > snip..signed krista... Doddiemoemoe here: If we read further into the text, we discover that Hagrid was not so late... I figure that Snape went to the gates because he heard or "overheard" malfoy bragging...saw a flash outside the window and went down to investigate and ended up escorting Harry from the gates... One may guess that Malfoy may have missed the horseless carriages as Harry did...and arrived later than most; hence, the whispering was still happening even after Harry arrived in the GH...(great hall)...Did Snape meet a late Malfoy earlier? on an aside... I really loved that Harry mistook Snape for Filch. I wonder why Harry didn't hear Tonks approach his compartment, (clumsy as Tonks is). I also wonder why Tonks showed up around the ROR...in HBP.. I always thought that it was not Tonks Harry met...but rather a Polyjuiced Snape....(makes so much more sense than any other of the explanations I've heard). Doddiemoe, (who wouldn't bne surprised at all if in the end...polyjuiced snape has turned up!) From lizabet612 at aol.com Sun Oct 2 05:46:11 2005 From: lizabet612 at aol.com (lizabet612 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 01:46:11 EDT Subject: Could Snape have PTSD? Message-ID: <74.5d78d48b.3070ce23@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141044 Eggplant: > It's remarkable that Harry isn't suffering from Post Traumatic Stress > Disorder after all the hell he's been through, but Snape? All Snape > has experienced is that minor little bullying incident many years ago; > and if something like that can send him into a lifetime emotional funk > then he is quite a wimp. Harry is made of stronger stuff. Liz's response (Who may be taking too many psych courses): PTSD is often associated with War, and soldiers. It comes from seeing (or doing) horrific acts - and being powerless to prevent them or stop it....I think Snape in his DE days has seen a lot of evil and besides Harry's parents may have done more. If Snape does have a conscience, I think that his mental state would be extremely stressed. It was just a psych niche I though could classify his erratic behavior patterns. liz From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 2 06:54:05 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 06:54:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141045 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > I still think that Snape is asking Harry the questions to determine > how much, if anything, he knows about magic (questions unrelated to > Potions would have been inappropriate) and to sound out his attitude. > (Does he have Lily's knack for Potions? Does he have James's arrogant > attitude? Is he, just possibly, the Dark Lord in the making that > Lucius Malfoy and friends suspected?) Without question, he uses the > opportunity to poke a hole in the balloon of Harry's celebrity status, > but he may have had good reason for doing so. He may not want the > future destroyer of Voldemort running around taking James Potter- style > risks for the fun of it or hexing people "just because he can." Best > to keep him humble--and alive. And quite possibly he's deliberately > trying to make Harry look mediocre in front of the Slytherins, some of > them children of DEs, so that they won't realize the threat Harry > poses. Geoff: Speaking from my experience over 30 years as a teacher of teenagers, when I came up against a class of new pupils every September, I would never have asked an indiivdual about their knowledge directly because of this exact problem - of causing embarrassment to a pupil who had not met that topic. I suspect that if Snape had thrown the questions out generally to the class, there would have been others who could noy have replied. I would be more likely to give the class a simple written test explaining that I merely wanted to know what they knew and give me guidance where there were areas where some pupils had not done the work at their prevus school. Again, to combine this with "poking a hole" in their status is not the best approach because you are looking at two very different aspects of the student. We would receive information from the Middle school about their achievements and also attitudes but I tried to start by giving each pupil a "clean page" so that I gained knowledge of the person from my own interaction and not from assessments made by other people which might bias my own views. Snape is allowing his preconceptions to override his educational - and pastoral - judgments of Harry right from the start. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 2 08:19:57 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 08:19:57 -0000 Subject: JokeShops/Patronus/Hagrid/SpinnersEnd/SWAKDEAD/Cleverest/RAB/Twins/DADA Prof Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141046 Katherine F. wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140424 : << Do wizards have an above-average affinity for practical jokes, since the small wizarding community of Great Britain is able to support *three* functioning joke shops? >> Maybe it can only support *two* functioning joke shops, since I seem to recall that Gambol and Japes vanished from Diagon Alley after Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes became successful, and I like to think it vanished due to losing business to the competition rather than to having been attacked by LV. Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140506 : << I was working on a theory of Snape sending his Patronus to the Trio with anonymous messages. >> Messages via (uniquely personal) Patronus aren't exactly *anonymous*, just that the kids don't recognize the signature and no doubt come up with many wrong certainties. Aussie/norbertsmummy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140521 : << What evidence athat the Marauders and Hagrid weren't close? Mainly because of the Marauders map itself.(snip) In POA, Peter / Scabbers knew he could hide in Hagrid's hut because it was not on the map - the Marauders had not plotted it ... maybe because they had never been inside >> I remain convinced that the Marauders and Hagrid WERE close, and interpret the inside of Hagrid's house not being on their Map as them respecting his privacy, showing more consideration for him than they did for most people (doesn't it show the inside of DD's office?). And I think Hagrid knew where to find the Potters because he had been told the Secret in a note written by the Secret Keeper. He may have been informed so that he could come to visit them in hiding, or DD may have handed him the note when tellling him to fetch baby Harry from the ruins. Potioncat wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140524 : << Let's assume, since most of us do anyway, that Spinner's End is the same house where teenaged Severus killed flies. >> Usually what most people assume from canon is right and I am wrong when I assume something else, but STILL I don't understand the reason for that assumption; it seems to me quite likely that Snape bought that house from the Muggle world (and repaired, remodelled, redecorated, furnished, and hid it as a wizarding house) with his salary from Hogwarts. According to a JKR interview, only Filch (the House Elves hadn't been introduced yet) stay at Hogwarts over the summer holiday, so he would have needed somewhere to go then. Where did Trelawney go, that DD could keep her safe from LV? << [Bella]'s surprised that he lives here. Narcissa, on the other hand, knows just where it is. (snip) Hmm, was there a dish of ACID POPS on the side table? >> Just that he hadn't owned that house yet when Bella went to Azkaban. Can you imagine if Lucius and Narcissa deigned to attend his housewarming ? Kaylee Lupin-Tonks wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140526 : << First Mate of the SWAK DEAD as well as Shipmate of the DRIBBLE SHADOWS, >> I couldn't find SWAK DEAD in Inish Alley. Torinarg wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140565 : << One point I have is the view that Lily Evans/Potter was a most extraordinary witch, perhaps the most extraordinary, however in POA Lupin tells Hermione that she is the most extraordinary witch of her age he has ever met, and he knew Lily very well. Any thoughts? >> He said that Hermione was the 'cleverest' witch of her age ('smartest' in American), which speaks to her abilities at book learning rather than to her amount of magical power. Hermione could have a tiny bit higher IQ while Lily had more magic power and magic intuition. Vadwe asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140667 : << Does anyone ever question if RAB isn't necesarily Regulus? >> I used to suggest that it was Ronald Arthur Bilius Weasley, hypothetical father of Arthur Weasley & his two brothers, one of whom probably was the Uncle Bilius who saw a Grim and died. (It is on JKR's website that Arthur Weasley was one of three brothers: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=7 ) bibphile wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140726 : << On a side note, am I the only one who thought it was very stupid of Harry to just try spells on people when he had no idea what they did. >> I thought it was SO stupid that I thought that the book was magically seducing him, something like the Riddle diary. It didn't have verbal conversations with him and I don't think it thought for itself, but it maybe had some charm on it to magnetically attract Harry, make him trust it and want to try out all its special spells. Maybe Hermione's intense dislike of it and Ron's inability to read it were also caused by magic -- if Hermione and Ron had both had the same reaction, it would be easy to believe that the spell simply included repelling everyone but the 'owner'. Unfortunately, I don't know how well a mere spell could tailor the type of repulsion to the repulsee's personality without 'thinking for itself'. But, y'know, a spell on the book telling it to belong to Harry could cause it to move itself from Snape's bookcase to the Potions classroom cabinet. Irene wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140733 : << I have yet to see a suicide note that reads: "My chemistry teacher is a mean, unfair, sarcastic bastard; and that's why I've had enough". >> I believe that is because the police hush up all suicide notes that blame a teacher or parent, out of respect for the authority over the child that parents and teachers, no matter how unworthy, have been given by law and custom. Sister Magpie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140787 : << Tom's childhood was spent in an orphanage, which is a completely unloving environment. >> Nitpick: when we saw Tom's orphanage in HBP, it was not as unloving as I had expected. The children were allowed to have toys; at least one child was allowed to have a *pet* (the bunny that Tom murdered); the annual outing was supposed to be Fun for the children... Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140845 : << I think he participated, at least once or twice, in the heinous cruelties that the DE's are reknowned for, I wouldn't be surprised if at first he was quite thrilled with it. Its continuity of the character to assume that he enjoyed being a nasty git when he was a DE. He enjoys it now, why should he have liked it any less then? >> I don't agree with that part. Just because a person enjoys hurting other people's feelings with vicious words or even damaging their cherished property doesn't mean that person enjoys physical violence. I'm inclined to think that Snape began to turn against LV and his friends because witnessing the torture (that he was expected to participate in, and enjoy it) made him queasy and the first time he saw a human being DIE turned his stomach. Brooding about it (I am certain he is good at brooding!) led him to realize that the acts of LV and his followers were counter-productive to the alleged goal of having a safe & prosperous wizarding world ruled by LV with powerful and luxurious jobs given to loyal followers and due respect to old pure-blood families. Elkins wrote once that she saw Snape as the type who would enjoy physical sadism and that a person who gives up something he enjoys because he decides that it's ethically wrong is more interesting than a person who gets squeamish at the sight of blood. Even I must admit squeamishness is not a sign of virtue; there are good people who are not squeamish (real!Moody for one). Betsy Hp wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140936 : << The reader has to assume so much (they didn't really mean for Dudley to suffocate to death, they would have felt bad if Montague had died, they wouldn't have let Katie Bell bleed to death, >> Well, they WOULDN'T have let Katie bleed to death. Even if neither of them was dating her, she was a valuable player for their Quidditch team. Mira wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/141019 : << JKR: Prof Snape said I'd like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape >> Since HBP, we now know that that was JKR's little joke -- it's a perfectly true statement, because the curse on the DADA chair brings out the worst in each DADA teacher. From firefightermichelle at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 08:45:58 2005 From: firefightermichelle at yahoo.com (Michelle) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 08:45:58 -0000 Subject: PTSD, Bias, and Polyjuiced People Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141047 My two knuts: While very often associated with war and service folk, PTSD is certainly not limited to war situations. I, in fact, suffered a bit of PTSD when I was robbed at gun point tied up and put in a closet, working the midnight shift at a hotel once. (October 1, 1999 at 328am ... some things are just etched in your mind forever.) For a solid week I did not sleep, eat, talk to people, leave my house. I couldn't handle being around people, but worse, I couldn't stand being alone, but was so crippled by the reprecussions of having someone so violently invading my personal space. I wasn't raped or physically harmed, but mental damage is sometimes worse. 6 years later, I still have quite the reaction when someone grabs my wrists. I am also a firefighter and have seen some of my comrades go through PTSD after particularly horrendous calls, usually involving children. Many of the problems experienced by FDNY firefighters after 9/11 were a direct result of the effects of PTSD. While mine wasn't THAT bad or prolonged, to a small degree I know how they felt. We typically refer to it as Critical Incident Stress. Anyone can experience it , it is basically a precursor to full blown PTSD. So how I am keeping myself from not having to slam my ears in the oven door with this post? If, in fact, Snape was in love with Lily, which I believe he was, then his act of betraying James and Lily to Voldemort and their subsequent, untimely ends, would have/could have been enough to trigger a PTSD reaction in Snape. Losing a loved one in a particularly vicious manner would certainly do it. I think it is directly Snape's fault that Lily and James died. His act of penance, however, was turning to Dumbledore for mercy and to be able to attempt to make amends for his egregious error in judgement (joining the DE's int he first place). Thus, his attitude toward Harry is a reaction to his love for Lily. He doesn't really hate Harry, but Snape knows that it is his fault that his mother is dead and, being unable to handle his feelings, he (Snape) keeps the one thing that is a constant reminder of his feelings (Harry) at a distance. (phew) I think that was one really long-winded sentence with a few punctuation marks thrown in for good measure! Bias ... there has been discussion about Arthur and Molly's attitudes toward muggles. I don't have much to say on the subject ... just that Molly's attitude strikes me as one of pity. She feels sorry for the poor people that can't do magic. It's not that she doesn't like them or think they are lesser beings, just they are like ... I don't know ... how many people view the blind or death or mentally or physically challenged or autistic. In general, people don't dislike them, but because they are uneducated about their conditions, they feel sorry for them. Ok, and my last little tidbit for the month ... what if ... just go with me on this one ... What if Snape was polyjuiced as DD and DD was polyjuiced as Snape? Then DD killed Snape and not the other way around!! One can only hope ... I miss Dumbledore. :( Saving lives and property, Michelle :) Ok, maybe it was only worth one knut ... From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 2 10:36:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 10:36:46 -0000 Subject: JokeShops/Patronus/Hagrid/SpinnersEnd/SWAKDEAD/Cleverest/RAB/Twins/DADA P In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141048 > Valky wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140506 : > > I was working on a theory of Snape sending his Patronus to the Trio > with anonymous messages. >> > Catlady: > Messages via (uniquely personal) Patronus aren't exactly > *anonymous*, just that the kids don't recognize the signature and no > doubt come up with many wrong certainties. Valky replies: Wel yeah, actually, that's kind of how my theory goes, and specifically, Harry's extremely frustrating (throughout the whole series) aversion to asking people obvious questions will hold us all back from knowing who it is for most, or all, of the book. As well as, I think, the high chance that Snapes Patronus will be something so pure and innocent that not a single one of the trio will for an instance equate it with Snape the Dumbledore killer. Like for instance a Unicorn. ;D > Valky wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140845 : > > << I think he participated, at least once or twice, in the heinous > cruelties that the DE's are reknowned for, I wouldn't be surprised > if at first he was quite thrilled with it. Its continuity of the > character to assume that he enjoyed being a nasty git when he was a > DE. He enjoys it now, why should he have liked it any less then? >> > Catlady: > I don't agree with that part. Just because a person enjoys hurting > other people's feelings with vicious words or even damaging their > cherished property doesn't mean that person enjoys physical > violence. Valky: I can agree to that too. I don't think it's out of the question for Snape to have enjoyed seeing someone he desired personal revenge on 'get theirs', but I equally think that he'd turn away just as quickly seeing someone who he didn't think 'deserved it' suffering. Catlady: > I'm inclined to think that Snape began to turn against LV and his > friends because witnessing the torture (that he was expected to > participate in, and enjoy it) made him queasy and the first time he > saw a human being DIE turned his stomach. Valky: I don't think he's quite that soft, but he could be, I only speculate . IMHO it would be his conscience seeing someone innocent, in his mind, die that would most disagree with him, and not an aversion to suffering in general. But we can agree to disagree, I think. > Catlady: > Brooding about it (I am certain he is good at brooding!) led him to > realize that the acts of LV and his followers were > counter-productive to the alleged goal of having a safe & prosperous > wizarding world ruled by LV with powerful and luxurious jobs given > to loyal followers and due respect to old pure-blood families. Valky: I don't think he'd have quite the comfrtable familiarity with the Malfoy's that he has if this were true. It could be too diplomatic for Snape to look at this area of the equation the way that you propose. I think he is not essentially for social equality, IMO, favouring the Malfoys, who supress everything they can, pretty much knocks down anything based of a sense of that in Snape. OTOH I agree he has some strong beliefs, as his brooding nature suggests, but I am still not sure what exactly they be. > Catlady: > Elkins wrote once that she saw Snape as the type who would enjoy > physical sadism and that a person who gives up something he enjoys > because he decides that it's ethically wrong is more interesting > than a person who gets squeamish at the sight of blood. Even I must > admit squeamishness is not a sign of virtue; there are good people > who are not squeamish (real!Moody for one). > Valky: I think you might say I agree with Elkins there, IMHO if Snapes strong beliefs are at all ESG then ethics suits him I think he has a sense of right and wrong but it is skewed slightly shallow. IMO, superficial appearances count for too much virtue with him, but he does show strong signs of being well intentioned among his other ambiguous characteristics. Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 2 12:32:39 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 12:32:39 -0000 Subject: The cave potion and soul pieces (Re: OFH! Snape again ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141049 > > Valky: > > Without assumptions of what DD 'figuratively' means by 'exchange', > > there is no reason at all to think it was destroyed. If we take it > > perfectly literally as given then Dumbledore is with certainty > > saying that he gave his hand, and got Voldemorts soul given back > > to him in return. > > Jen: See, I read that a different way: DD gave up his wand hand, a > very crucial part of being a wizard, to destroy the soul piece. One > death in exchange for one death. If his wand hand were merely > injured, then the soul piece would only be injured, too. But the > hand is dead, so the soul piece is dead. Valky: I see what you mean, I don't think it *has* to to be read that way, basically since Hermione's observation that it had died, was never actually corroborated by Dumbledore. Dumbledores words specifically, (that there was a terrible curse on the ring, his quick thinking and Snape saved him from certain death, and the two quotes I mentioned before), substantiate reading it the way I proposed, I think, but I can also concede that you have a fair point. OTOH there is some counter argument to that too. Early in the book Harry observed Dumbledore favouring his damaged hand as though there was pain in it. This suggests that Hermione may actually have been mistaken in her hypothesis, as I suspect a 'dead hand wouldn't feel pain. Now that I say that, we've seen dead and pain in the same sentence before! That's fascinating. When Harry was possessed directly by Voldemort he 'knew he was dead' and at the same time was in excrutiating pain. > > > > Jen: OK, that moment alone might be worth your theory being > > > true! Except Snape passed up the perfect opportunity to lay his > > > guilt trip on Harry when H. screamed for him to 'kill me, like > > > you did him, coward!' (paraphrased). > > > Valky: > > Aha! but read again Jen, they aren't yelling about Dumbledore > > Harry is not accusing him of killing Dumbledore, he's accusing him > > of killing James. > > Jen: Pippin mentioned that intepretation, so I have read and re-read > that passage. I do see Snape is referring to James previous to > the "kill me like you did him" quote by Harry. The ambiguous part to > me is Snape has no idea Harry knows he was the eavesdropper. > Dumbledore never told Snape's story to anyone. Snape doesn't know a > mere few hours before Harry heard Trelawney spill the beans. Valky: I actually do agree you have a point there, but I'd go so far as to imagine that since Snape knows more than Harry does about the moments surrounding his parents death, there may be even more yet to the story that adds to Snapes culpability in James murder. Jen: > It seems to me even if Harry is referring to James, Snape > would automatically think of the AK cast at Dumbledore b/c that's > the person he 'killed' so recently and Harry was there to see it > (which Snape must have known when he saw the two brooms and no > Harry, or because DD told him he was taking Harry to the cave). > Valky: I can imagine Snape thinking that Harry was talking about Dumbledore in that moment *if* his only involvement in James death was passing on the prophecy, but we don't know for sure that this is all there is, yet, there is still a lot of story to be told. In the heat of the moment, Harry accuses him of killing his father, and Snape doesn't deny it, which could even mean that Snape *is more* responsible than we or Hrry know. He doesn't have to be full aware of what Harry knows if he truly is guilty, he only needs to remember his own part in it. Jen: > possible Dumbledore warned Snape that Harry found out the truth in > the five minutes it took Harry to get his cloak, but we aren't privy > to that. Valky: I seriously doubt it. Dumbledore wouldn't go out of his way to pass this kind of information. OTOH Snape is capable of assuming that Harry knows everything about it anyway, the way he was assumed by so many people to have known why he should hate Sirius Black, and the way the DE's and Voldemort assumed he knew of the prophecy. > Jen: > > > Possession would explain how Voldemort was able to keep the > > > potion-drinker "alive long enough to find out how they managed > > > to penetrate so far through his defenses, and most importantly > > > of all, why they were so intent upon emptying the basin." (chap. > > > 26, p. 569, Scholastic) > > > Valky: > > Sorry, Jen, I don't understand how it explains that. > > Jen: What I meant is if the potion has some type of essence of > Voldemort in it that can possess the person drinking it, Voldemort > would then be able to see into the person's thoughts and feelings to > figure out why the person is in the cave, how he found it in the > first place, and why the person is emptying the basin. After > Voldemort has accessed the information he needs, he leaves the body > and the person dies, ala Quirrell, or a stronger wizard would still > be alive but very weak. Some aspect of the potion would kick in to > make the drinker crave water and drink from the lake. That would be > the poison and would also line up with Dumbledore's idea the potion > isn't meant to 'kill immediately' because it doesn't actually do the > killing, the water does. Valky: Ahh I understand know, but this IMO is kin to saying the Locket was not the Horcrux, the potion was. I am absolutely certain that noone (not even Voldemort) Voldemort can possess without using the soul. > > > Saraquel: > > That the soul-part would possess anyone who tried to destroy it is > > the perfect defence,IMO and soooo Voldemort. > > > > That if the Ring HSP (horcrux soul part)had already posessed DD, > > then Snape would know that and DD's pleading on the tower makes > > complete sense, "I'm possessed by the horcrux we went after > > tonight, you must kill me in this situation." Snape would have > > known that DD was going after a horcrux IMO, as he would have > > forewarned Snape to be ready. Valky: I have reached my ten thousandth take on the pleading, so I am having a milestone celebration Severus Please..... "Don't let the DE's see me die of the potion. And don't let them strike the final blow, Voldemorts soul will flee to them and he'll find out, so do it quickly." It could also go this way.. DD - Severus, I believe, what we need is a diversion, blast me off the tower.. SS - Not Fair! This is Potters work isn't it? You want me to protect that stupid boy again. DD - Severus please, just carry out this order. > Valky: > > I have been mulling over the thought that somehow Snape and > > Dumbledore managed to stop the possession and life drain, but not > > indefinitely, hence DD preparing for his death. It would makes > > sense that the entry point of the curse would reflect the madness > > within, and I think this is in the nature of Voldemorts curses > > deliberately. > > Jen: So this is where the soul piece would still be inside > Dumbledore? Maybe I'm thinking too much about the diary, but it > seems like if the ring is destroyed, the soul piece would be too. > Maybe it did enter Dumbeldore and that's what caused him to be near- > death, but then I do think the evil spirit/soul was cast out somehow > by Snape and when it was destroyed, as it left DD's body, it > withered his wand hand in the process. Valky: It occurs to me that the Diary and the Ring were probably destroyed in different ways. I deduce that Dumbledore may have attempted to re-enact to the best of his ability, the way Harry destroyed the Diary, but he could easily have discounted something important to the process, something small that Harry did, but he didn't. An error with the unfortunate consequence of leaving Dumbledore with no choice but to die sometime in the near future or give up all hope of defeating Voldemort. I'd call that a 'huge' mistake, wouldn't you? > Jen: > I guess my reluctance to think the soul piece is inside DD is > feeling undecided about DD dying throughout HBP. Valky: I don't actually buy into that line of reasoning myself. I think Dumbledore and Snape successfully halted the process of Dumbledore dying, but only for a limited time. I agree Dumbledore wasn't weakening throughout the year, but I do believe he might have made the choice to die of the potion rather than forsake the fight against LV for a few more trivial moments of life. > Jen: > Harry never sees flashes of anyone behind Dumbledore's > eyes like DD saw in Harry's eyes when Voldemort was in there. So I'm > still up in the air on this one. > Valky: Yes that's a good point, but in my hypothesis this would have started happening sometime in the near future, Dumbledore died to prevent it. Valky From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 12:58:06 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 12:58:06 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141050 >Betsy wrote: So no, it's not readily apparent to me that Snape has Death Eater tendencies. JKR hasn't made much effort to display any that I've seen. (Not in the books I've been reading, anyway. vmonte: Except for the fact that Snape WAS a Death Eater, right? So the fact that you fail to see DE like tendencies in Snape is irrelevant. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that the signs are not there. >vmonte: LOL! So Snape's not a bully huh? Not even to the children he teaches at Hogwarts? Oh, that's right, JKR is wrong about what the word sadistic means. >Magda wrote: This is typical of the way Vivian and Alla argue: the context of the original posts was Snape's alleged bullying when he was a teenage student at Hogwarts. Having made a number of claims - which I addressed - they then shift position and talk about Snape's actions as an adult teacher. Pardon me if I consider this something less than persuasive rebuttal. vmonte again: But your claims make no sense. Snape continues to behave in an inappropriately sadistic manner. It's this consistency to behave badly that I'm referring to. Snape is a seriously flawed (nasty) character, who behaves like a child instead of a grown man. And he gets off on the pain of others--he's pathetic. So, pardon me if your comments do not hold any validity for me. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 13:47:07 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:47:07 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141052 PJ wrote: 2) In CoS he tries to have Harry expelled. (Ch5 pg81 Scholastic) It's canon that once you're expelled your wand is snapped and you aren't allowed to perform magic anymore. So the one person who, according to the prophesy Snape heard with his own ears, can defeat LV is the same person Snape wants expelled and permanently disarmed. Hmmmm..... vmonte: "He is mediocre to the last degree, though as obnoxious and self- satisfied as was his father before him. I have done my utmost to have him thrown out of Hogwarts, where I believe he scarcely belongs, but kill him, or allow him to be killed in front of me? I would have been a fool to risk it with Dumbledore close at hand." (Page 31, Spinner's End) Snape has tried to get Harry expelled, period. What anyone wants to believe regarding his intentions are irrelevant. Snape did try to get Harry expelled in CoS, we all read the same passage. It is very clear that Snape does not believe in Harry like Dumbledore does, and that he actively tries to undermine Harry in everyway possible--although not enough to get himself in trouble, of course. I'm rereading GoF right now and it's apparent that Crouch Jr. is the only person in the HP series that realizes what Snape is. Crouch Jr. knows that Snape is OFH. His interactions with Snape make that very apparent to me. Read the scene on the staircase again with this in mind. Barty Jr. is threatening Snape on the stairs. He secretly knows that Snape is not loyal to any side, and he lets Snape know it. I love how Snape backs down and goes to his room with his tail between his legs...HAHA (BTW the attitude Crouch Jr. has towards Snape and Draco makes it very apparent to me that he sees them as two peas in a pod.) Vivian From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 2 15:21:42 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:21:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's bias again, answering several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141053 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > I'm not sure that we can judge the extent of Harry's ignorance based > on Ron's response, considering that Ron never cracks a book unless he has to. Pippin: That's exactly my point. Ron is our index of what's common knowledge, as opposed to booklearning. Harry could have learned all those things from books just as Hermione did, (she's probably the sort who reads dictionaries and encyclopedias just for fun) but they evidently aren't the kind of things any young wizard would know but no Muggle would, like how many players are on a Quidditch team or who are the Weird Sisters. So Snape is picking on Harry but not for being ignorant of common wizarding knowledge. Snape is pointing out that Harry is nothing special, which wouldn't bother Harry (he didn't *want* to be special, right?) except that it made him look bad in front of the Slytherins. He does think he should be better than them. While Harry may not have had an initial bias against Snape as a person, he had definitely already developed a bias against Slytherin House. He'd been given misinformation (there never was a wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin) and had already decided that they looked like a hard lot. What changes between this scene and the one in HBP is not Snape's behavior or Harry's tendency to mouth off without thinking but Harry's reaction to being punished. In SS/PS, Harry is mortified that he has lost a point for Gryffindor. In HBP, getting a detention is no big deal and House points are scarely worth thinking about, though Harry is annoyed when Hermione doesn't get any for answering a question correctly. But (correct me if I'm wrong) we've never seen Snape give points for answering a question correctly. Pippin From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Oct 2 16:33:14 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:33:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] PTSD, Bias, and Polyjuiced People Message-ID: <1d4.45a0e29c.307165ca@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141054 In a message dated 10/2/2005 4:46:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, firefightermichelle at yahoo.com writes: I am also a firefighter and have seen some of my comrades go through PTSD after particularly horrendous calls, usually involving children. Many of the problems experienced by FDNY firefighters after 9/11 were a direct result of the effects of PTSD. While mine wasn't THAT bad or prolonged, to a small degree I know how they felt. We typically refer to it as Critical Incident Stress. Anyone can experience it , it is basically a precursor to full blown PTSD. -------------------- Sherrie here: Another group which often suffers from PTSD are victims of domestic violence. If Snape was an abused child, and/or witnessed the abuse of his mother, that too might be a source of PTSD. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 2 17:02:10 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Oct 2005 17:02:10 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1128272530.19.29750.m25@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141055 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 2, 2005 Time: 1:00PM CDT (GMT-05:00) 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 erikog at one.net Sun Oct 2 15:25:31 2005 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:25:31 -0000 Subject: Snape, bias, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141056 I wrote: > > I want to know why it is that Snape fetches Harry, vs. Hagrid, > > from Tonks at the Hogwarts gate. (Chapter 8 of the > > US standard hardback; p. 155 the chapter begins.) Yes, there's a ...and DoddieMoeMoe said: > If we read further into the text, we discover that Hagrid was not so late... We discover that, according to Hermione, Hagrid was not very late. He was, however, still late, and would've been even later had he gone down to fetch Harry personally. He also tells the kids that he had gotten wrapped up in seeing his brother and didn't have an eye on the time, so Snape's suggestion that he was coming to get Harry because Hagrid couldn't is grounded in fact. He could have another agenda as well, of course, but his reason, Hagrid running late, is established. > I figure that Snape went to the gates because he heard > or "overheard" malfoy bragging...saw a flash outside the window and > went down to investigate and ended up escorting Harry from the > gates... The reference to the patronus--new and old--makes me think that Snape actually received the message; he didn't just accidentally see something from afar. (Tonks, frowning, actually says she meant for Hagrid to *receive* the message.) Also, had he spotted the patronus by accident, not being its intended recipient, wouldn't the patronus signal have gone out to "find" Hagrid still? > I always thought that it was not Tonks Harry met...but rather a > Polyjuiced Snape....(makes so much more sense than any other of the > explanations I've heard). Why?? The Tonks in this scene is consistent with the Tonks we see throughout the book, and JKR does give her a reason for being mopey (even if I'm unimpressed with Love Unrequited doing this to Tonks' character). I'm surprised. I see no reason for Tonks not to be Tonks here. Carol writes: > To get back to Harry--I think what we're seeing here is his unresolved > anger at himself for his role in Sirius Black's death. In OoP we have > the narrator stating (from Harry's POV): "He would never forgive > Snape. Never." That statement stood out to me the moment I read it as > an example of the unreliable narrator making an assertion that would > eventually be contradicted... V. much agreed here. I believe the end of the series, coinciding with the end of Harry's maturation process, will come back to these questions of responsibility and forgiveness, including foregiveness of oneself. > Carol, wondering what to make of the chapter title ("Snape Victorious") --especially since this chapter begins with Tonks fetching Harry! It doesn't start with the Great Hall Feast and the bombshell about the new DADA professor, as it could have, were the title just a reference to Snape getting the job. I think it is a double-layered comment on JKR's part: Snape, receiving his long-desired job (his "victory" in the eyes of the students); and if you consider Snape a walking symbol of guilt and self-hatred, the triumph of these emotions within *Harry*. Krista From jajaredor at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 17:55:44 2005 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 10:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: <1128272530.19.29750.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051002175544.34821.qmail@web61224.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141057 Hi guys, I don't know if this has already been brought up before but it was so hard to read all of the topics here, honestly. I just have few comments about the so-called Side-Along apparition since JKR has never used it before, well, that's as far as the extent of my knowledge goes... Anyways, I just don't understand that JKR would actually consider this... see, it could be used to DE's advantages like when Harry's in Hogsmead or just anywhere away from school. Also, the fact that Snape and the rest of the DE's know LV wanted Harry for himself, why don't they just stalk Harry when he's in Hogsmead, grab him then disapparate? I mean, Draco could just give them info about when's the next Hogsmead visit right? Thank y'all, Jaja "Just because the ship has sailed doesn't mean it has sunk already" - Jade --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lipa at pobox.com Sun Oct 2 17:34:52 2005 From: lipa at pobox.com (Leposava Toseski) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:34:52 -0000 Subject: The cave potion and soul pieces (Re: OFH! Snape again ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141058 Saraquel: > > That if the Ring HSP (horcrux soul part)had already posessed DD, > > then Snape would know that and DD's pleading on the tower makes > > complete sense, "I'm possessed by the horcrux we went after > > tonight, you must kill me in this situation." Snape would have > > known that DD was going after a horcrux IMO, as he would have > > forewarned Snape to be ready. Lipa: This is fairly similar to what I have been thinking. Dumbledore was asking to be killed, quickly. My guess is that the curse from the ring and/or the potion/water combination from the cave were finishing him in a horrible way, dehumanizing him (Inferi, Dementors, Ghosts, ... come to mind) and only timely death could save him from destiny which he considered worse than death. Dumbledore did talk about Voldemort's excessive fear of death as if it were the worst thing to happen to a person (which it wasn't). Also, I cannot imagine DD begging for his life. ===I have joined this group looking for exactly this kind of conversation. I am 52 years old and very new to Harry Potter. I read all six books for the first time this summer. I am glad that I did not have to live through even wilder guesses before HBP was published. Waiting for the seventh book is bad enough. Lipa From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 23:25:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:25:15 -0000 Subject: JokeShops/Patronus/Hagrid/SpinnersEnd/SWAKDEAD/Cleverest/RAB/Twins/DADA Prof In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141059 > Mira wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG > rownups/message/141019 : > > << JKR: Prof Snape said I'd like to be Prof of Defence Against the > Dark Arts please and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst > in Snape >> Catlady: > Since HBP, we now know that that was JKR's little joke -- it's a > perfectly true statement, because the curse on the DADA chair brings > out the worst in each DADA teacher. Alla: I am not sure we know it for a fact, actually. I could be wrong, of course. I remember Potioncat ( I think) making the deduction that this statement was a joke based on Carol's excellent essay about DADA jinx. It is a strong possibility of course that DADA curse works exactly that way - namely by bringing out the worst in every DADA professor, but I don't think we know that for sure. The only thing we know for sure is that DADA curse makes DADA teachers leave after a year, IMO. So, I think this statement may not be a joke and relate only to Snape. JMO, Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 01:00:50 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:00:50 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Fake!Moody (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141060 > >>Vmonte: > > I'm rereading GoF right now and it's apparent that Crouch Jr. is the > only person in the HP series that realizes what Snape is. Crouch Jr. > knows that Snape is OFH. His interactions with Snape make that very > apparent to me. Read the scene on the staircase again with > this in mind. Barty Jr. is threatening Snape on the stairs. He > secretly knows that Snape is not loyal to any side, and he lets > Snape know it. I love how Snape backs down and goes to his room > with his tail between his legs...HAHA > (BTW the attitude Crouch Jr. has towards Snape and Draco makes it > very apparent to me that he sees them as two peas in a pod.) Betsy Hp: It's precisely this sort of...hmm, I think hypocrisy might be too strong a word, but there's definitely a disconnect here, that I just cannot wrap my mind around. You seem to be cheering Fake!Moody on. And yet, you also say you dislike Snape because you find his behavior sadistic. So, it's okay to repeatedly drop a child onto a stone floor from such a height his body bounces off the ground, but it's sadistic to ask a child a question for which he doesn't have the answer. Is it just because the child being tortured is one you dislike? Snape was definitely being unkind when he treatened to feed Neville's potion to his toad, but Neville (and his toad) left that potions class with a sound mind. There was no real evidence of sadism there, IMO. Fake!Moody, however, treated Neville to a display of the very curse he (Fake!Moody) had used to drive Neville's parents insane. Neville walked out of that classroom in a state of complete shock. Now that *does* smack of sadism to me. Then, of course, there's Harry. During that scene that left you so thrilled, Vmonte, Snape was worried about items stolen from his storage room. Items Fake!Moody stole to maintain his illusion so he could send Harry to his death. Aren't you cheering for the wrong man here? If Snape *had* discovered Fake!Moody's theft, the jig would have been up, Cedric wouldn't have died, and Harry wouldn't have gone through the hell that was the end of GoF for him. Seems to me there was one clear villain and sadist on that staircase. It's strange that you've chosen that particular man to cheer for. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 01:29:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:29:47 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Fake!Moody (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141061 > > >>Vmonte: > > >Read the scene on the staircase again with > > this in mind. Barty Jr. is threatening Snape on the stairs. He > > secretly knows that Snape is not loyal to any side, and he lets > > Snape know it. I love how Snape backs down and goes to his room > > with his tail between his legs...HAHA > > (BTW the attitude Crouch Jr. has towards Snape and Draco makes it > > very apparent to me that he sees them as two peas in a pod.) > > Betsy Hp: > It's precisely this sort of...hmm, I think hypocrisy might be too > strong a word, but there's definitely a disconnect here, that I just > cannot wrap my mind around. You seem to be cheering Fake!Moody on. > And yet, you also say you dislike Snape because you find his behavior > sadistic. Alla: I cannot speak for Vmonte, of course, but I think that the only aspect she is cheering Crouch for is his success in making Snape to back down, whether this is for right or wrong purposes. And, I have to say, I absolutely share that, BUT not because it was an OK thing to do, but because that was to me the sort of poetic justice, carmic punishment, vicarious retribution, pick the term. Fake!Moody makes Snape back down, he shifts the balance of power so to speak and this was VERY satisfying read to me. To make a long story short - Crouch makes Snape squirm, albeit temporarily, he does something which Harry and Neville cannot do, since the power is ALWAYS belongs to Snape when he interacts with them. Here we see Snape for once being truly scared. I loved it. I don't have to think that Crouch is a good man to cheer him up when he takes on someone whom I don't consider to be a good man either. Betsy Hp: > Then, of course, there's Harry. During that scene that left you so > thrilled, Vmonte, Snape was worried about items stolen from his > storage room. Items Fake!Moody stole to maintain his illusion so he > could send Harry to his death. Aren't you cheering for the wrong man > here? If Snape *had* discovered Fake!Moody's theft, the jig would > have been up, Cedric wouldn't have died, and Harry wouldn't have gone > through the hell that was the end of GoF for him. Alla: Here is that, of course, unexpected consequence, but the funny thing is that even knowing what you said , I still love that scene, because to me Snape does not get nearly enough punishment through out the series, it is only in round about sort of way. I will take what I can get. Betsy: > Seems to me there was one clear villain and sadist on that > staircase. It's strange that you've chosen that particular man to > cheer for. > Alla: I think there are two of those in that scene, actually. And again the only reason I cheered for Crouch there was because it was another sort of Boggart scene to me. When Snape gets something back of what he dishes out, I like it a lot, no matter whom it will come from. JMO of course, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 01:35:30 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:35:30 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141062 Valky: > Going off on my own sort of tangent here, I don't think that people > change. The intimation is certainly touted plenty, but I don't think > that makes it true. What others call change in a person I call > change in the person's perspective and understanding, the person > themselves remains the same. > Snape's mean vindictive behaviour is not the tragic > legacy of his lonely childhood, it's his real personality. His > childhood, his torment, is fuel for that fire, but the spark is in > Snape himself. > > Pippin: > Um, then there's really no point in JKR telling us to choose what's > right over what is easy, is there. Valky: No I am not sure I agree with that at all. The choices define the person, according to Dumbledore, more than abilities. This is the yardstick that JKR has given us to measure her characters with, in the context of her story, and I think that it is this about the series that agrees with the philosophy that people don't change. What they are truly about, deep down, will stay pretty much the same revealed in their choices. To me, the point of choosing right over what is easy is not to demonstrate that a person suddenly changes who they are and becomes something perfect always choosing the right, that doesn't happen. James is a good example I think, of the difference between whats right and whats easy while the essential person remains the same. Young James list of Character traits adds up to a bloke who has strong beliefs about the WW. He dislikes blood prejudice, and he Hates Dark Arts. He is also well liked for good reason, as well as the superficial reasons, because he sees no colour with outcasts like Lupin, Sirius and Pettigrew, and he makes people laugh too (most probably not always for being an ass). The pensieve adds more dimensions to James, sure, but the dimensions we started with are not invalidated by that, they are added to, there is still a lot of nice guy about James Potter. So my assessment of James generally a nice guy, who deliberately and openly sets himself against things that he thinks are wrong and evil. His groups of best friends - A Werewolf, a Blood Traitor, and a virtual Squib. Who he dislikes - DE gang of Slytherins (Lucius) and Snape. So from the start his character is perfectly consistent, with my assessment. Later he openly defies and humiliates the student who invents Dark curses in his schoolbooks, then after that saves the same kids life, and then even later continues to cross wands with Snape. The last three things aren't consistent actions at all. But they reveal a consistent character both sides of choosing right over easy. Before the prank James turned his defiance of all things he hated, all things that were wrong in his mind, on an easy target. Snape. Then confronted with the choice to let Snape face Lupin alone and unprepared, he saw another wrong, but this time his defiance of it needed to be turned upon his best friend Sirius. A Hard choice, and James, the same essential person, made the choice of what was right over what was easy and defied his best friend to save Snape. After a while James has moved on from turning his 'I defy' s on his peers (and focuses on more adult pursuits most likely). He wins Lily's heart, but he still fights Snape in secret. The essential James hasn't changed, its grown up and moved on, he still defies what is evil in his opinion, he still cares about the welfare and rights of people in minority groups, but now he chooses right over easy a bit more often than not. Pippin: > JKR talks about the animal side > of us in her interviews. I think she's getting at the idea that all > of us have instincts to be cruel because it *is* sometimes > necessary to hurt others for their own good -- the Dursleys have > failed Dudley by their unwillingness to punish him. Valky: Yes I think I agree with that in most ways. But there are many ways to be wrong even if you are hurting others for their own good, and JKR gives examples of that too. Dumbledore hurts Harry to protect him by sending him to the Dursleys, some may think that was wrong but I am inclined to disagree, OTOH Dumbledore admits he was wrong to leave Harry so alone in fifth year because it hurt him so much, there were reasons why it was for the best, but Dumbledore admits that it probably was the reason things turned for the worst, another example is Nevilles Uncle Algie throwing him out windows and such, for his own good, yes, according to Algie, but really quite cruel anyway. I also think that James and Sirius thought they had the measure of what was good for Snape and the school in general when they were bullying Snape, but they were wrong, and Snape definitely thinks he has the measure of Harry throughout the series, and he chooses to be cruel and he tells others that he really believes he's doing whats best for the boy, but he too is wrong. Pippin: > That instinct is very strong in Snape -- but he's not a horrible > person because of that. He didn't choose his brain. He's a horrible > person only when he lets that instinct run away with him. Valky: No, but when he gets called a horrible person for that, by someone like Harry, then it should be a lesson to him like Lily's chewing out of James in the Pensieve should be (and probably was) a lesson to James. He's wrong about it, and if he doesn't want to be seen as horrible then he needs to lift his eyes and aim for a higher purpose. Snape did choose how to use his brain. And he can choose differently next time. > Pippin: > But I think he can learn to control it, though maybe not as > well as someone in whom that instinct is weaker, or better > balanced by the instinct to be fair. Valky: I agree with that. I think we are on the same page here, somewhat, too. Instincts, IMO are quite neutral and can be turned either way. Snapes instincts are, I think, that he needs order and rationality, and he needs to feel he has a secure handle on his greater environment, he is very in need of control. He chooses what is easy, to express those instincts, when he spies on the Marauders, trying to take control of what happens in their lives. Later James saves him from the werewolf and this cuts him deeply because it takes away his sense of control over the situation. As Dumbledore said, Snape could not bear to be in debt to someone who he hated so much. It wasn't logical or ordered, it was cross purposing his sense of control over his environment, in knowing where he stood and where James stood, and why he was good and James was bad. It all went out the window for him in that moment. It was easy to resent James for the life debt, rather than deal with his own confusion and question his belief that James was bad. The hard, but right choice would have been to shake hands and move on making order in his future environment. Both are valid choices for the same essential character, if you see what I mean. Just one leads to better things than the other. Later in Snapes life Dumbledore offers him a hard choice, that suits his essential neutral character and turns it to the fight for good. Snape is an excellent double agent. It was a Hard choice to be a spy for the Order, the losing team, as so many have pointed out, but it was an easy choice for Snape to be a spy, because that is his true person. All we need to know now is whether Snape made the hard choice or the easy choice, that would answer all questions, past and future, about Snape. I lean towards hard choice now, myself, but IMO it's still almost impossible to know, so I don't blame anyone for leaning the other way. Valky From marilynpeake at cs.com Mon Oct 3 01:41:17 2005 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:41:17 -0000 Subject: Could Snape have PTSD? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141063 "eggplant107" wrote: >> It's remarkable that Harry isn't suffering from Post Traumatic Stress > Disorder after all the hell he's been through, but Snape? >> Harry is made of stronger stuff. Marilyn Peake writes: I think that's the main thing about Harry that makes him so appealing to so many people all around the world. When I was studying for my graduate degree in Clinical Psychology, I remember reading about theories regarding the "invulnerable child" - the type of child who is able to grow up normal despite severe emotional disturbance in the parents. One theory is that these children don't blame themselves, and can clearly separate themselves from their parents' problems. Harry certainly seems to be able to do that very well in all of his home and school environments! Best Wishes, Marilyn http://www.marilynpeake.com Featured Poet, October 2005, at TRI Studio Authors: http://www.tri-studio.com/Guestpoetrypage.html From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 01:41:56 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:41:56 -0000 Subject: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: <20051002175544.34821.qmail@web61224.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141064 Jaja wrote: > I don't know if this has already been brought up before but it was so hard to read all of the topics here, honestly. I just have few comments about the so-called Side-Along apparition since JKR has never used it before, well, that's as far as the extent of my knowledge goes... > Anyways, I just don't understand that JKR would actually consider this... see, it could be used to DE's advantages like when Harry's in Hogsmead or just anywhere away from school. Also, the fact that Snape and the rest of the DE's know LV wanted Harry for himself, why don't they just stalk Harry when he's in Hogsmead, grab him then disapparate? I mean, Draco could just give them info about when's the next Hogsmead visit right? Ginger gropes for an answer: No canon, but my guess would be that since Harry is old enough to know whether or not he wants to go along, that his intent would matter. The times we have seen SAA (as I'm calling it) either Harry or DD has asked the one being transported if they are ready, or something of that nature. I would think that if Harry was grabbed by someone with whom he really didn't want to go, that he'd just mentally refuse and either not dissappear at all or be splinched. I'm guessing that's why the MoM pamphlets tell parents to review and practice SAA with the family. My guess would be that any child who is old enough to have a preference needs to understand that they must want to go with Mummy or Daddy, or at least not fight it. This could get tricky with toddlers. Or any child who has not been taught the heliocentricity of the earth. (Translation: any kid who thinks the world revolves around them and that parental mandates are optional.) Of course, if the DE's want to get Harry in Hogsmead, they could. I don't see Draco coming back to be a source of info, but there are plenty of others who could give it or be tricked into it. I'm sure the school warns the merchants of Hogsmead in advance to expect an increase in their business. The DEs could either stupify him and take him in an unconscious state, or trick him into believing he was going with someone he trusted. Just my thoughts. Ginger, planning out the trip for her upcoming holiday and wishing she could apparate. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 01:54:44 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:54:44 -0000 Subject: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141065 > Ginger gropes for an answer: > > No canon, but my guess would be that since Harry is old enough to > know whether or not he wants to go along, that his intent would > matter. The times we have seen SAA (as I'm calling it) either Harry > or DD has asked the one being transported if they are ready, or > something of that nature. I would think that if Harry was grabbed by > someone with whom he really didn't want to go, that he'd just > mentally refuse and either not dissappear at all or be splinched. > > I'm guessing that's why the MoM pamphlets tell parents to review and > practice SAA with the family. My guess would be that any child who > is old enough to have a preference needs to understand that they must > want to go with Mummy or Daddy, or at least not fight it. This could > get tricky with toddlers. zgirnius: This is an excellent answer! It also answers the question I've wondered about: why didn't Lily simply apparate away with Baby Harry that night?! Just adjust your answer to include the requirement that the person being apparated must be able to understand what is about to happen, and is willing. From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 3 02:14:06 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:14:06 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > So my assessment of James generally a nice guy, who deliberately and > openly sets himself against things that he thinks are wrong and evil. > > His groups of best friends - A Werewolf, a Blood Traitor, and a > virtual Squib. colebiancardi says: Peter is not a Squib. Not even a virtual one. He can change his form to an animal, he was able to be the secret keeper, he blasted a street full of muggles, and stayed hidden as a rat for 12 years. He also was able to escape Sirius when caught again. I think Peter is a lot of things, but a Squib? >Valky: > leads to better things than the other. > Later in Snapes life Dumbledore offers him a hard choice, that suits > his essential neutral character and turns it to the fight for good. > Snape is an excellent double agent. It was a Hard choice to be a spy > for the Order, the losing team, as so many have pointed out, but it > was an easy choice for Snape to be a spy, because that is his true > person. All we need to know now is whether Snape made the hard choice > or the easy choice, that would answer all questions, past and future, > about Snape. I lean towards hard choice now, myself, but IMO it's > still almost impossible to know, so I don't blame anyone for leaning > the other way. > > colebiancardi: (sorry to snip so much...) but Snape was already a spy for Voldemort at the time he switched sides. So, how was that an easy choice for him, already being a spy, to turn and spy for Dumbledore, the *losing team* at the time? Since Snape was already a spy, I also lean towards the hard choice, but not because being a spy is in his true nature. not arguing, just pointing out a couple things great post, BTW colebiancardi From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 02:44:29 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:44:29 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Fake!Moody (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141067 Betsy wrote: It's precisely this sort of...hmm, I think hypocrisy might be too strong a word, but there's definitely a disconnect here, that I just cannot wrap my mind around. You seem to be cheering Fake!Moody on. And yet, you also say you dislike Snape because you find his behavior sadistic. So, it's okay to repeatedly drop a child onto a stone floor from such a height his body bounces off the ground, but it's sadistic to ask a child a question for which he doesn't have the answer. Is it just because the child being tortured is one you dislike? vmonte: What is your problem? I'm not saying that I like Barty Jr. What I said was that Barty Jr. knows that Snape is OFH. I never said anything about Barty Jr. being sexy, cool, a hero, etc. He is still a villian. Vivian From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 3 02:55:36 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:55:36 -0000 Subject: SpinnersEnd/ /DADA Prof (multi post) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141068 Catlady responded to a post about Spinner's End. > Usually what most people assume from canon is right and I am wrong > when I assume something else, but STILL I don't understand the reason > for that assumption; it seems to me quite likely that Snape bought > that house from the Muggle world (and repaired, remodelled, > redecorated, furnished, and hid it as a wizarding house) with his > salary from Hogwarts. >snip< Potioncat: All that buying and fixing up... would make a great TV show. While we may be jumping to conclusions, the description of Spinner's End fits very well with the dark bedroom that housed a teenaged boy killing flies. Even the flies seem to fit. Young Snape is described as being like a plant which doesn't get enough sun light. (or something along that line.) We don't know enough, of course, to really determine if this was his parents' house or if he bought it later. I'm still surprised that Narcissa knows the way so well. Bella was listed as being in the gang he hung out with, of course, no one of Harry's gang has been to his house except Ron. So it isn't too farfetched to think Bella wouldn't know where Snape lived, (then or now.) > > Catlady also responded to a post about the DADA jinx. > > Since HBP, we now know that that was JKR's little joke -- it's a > > perfectly true statement, because the curse on the DADA chair > brings out the worst in each DADA teacher. > > > Alla countered: > It is a strong possibility of course that DADA curse works exactly > that way - namely by bringing out the worst in every DADA professor, but I don't think we know that for sure. > > The only thing we know for sure is that DADA curse makes DADA > teachers leave after a year, IMO. > > So, I think this statement may not be a joke and relate only to > Snape. Potioncat: JKR said that the DADA position (quote is upthread) would bring out the worst in Snape. That's caused all sorts of posts that wonder why Potions doesn't do the same thing with all the bad things you can brew up. Or posts comparing the situation to one of an alcoholic tending bar. But if you look at the manner in which the DADA teachers we've seen have fallen, you see that it does bring out the worst. And it brings them down by some weakness of their own. Even Mad-Eye Moody, who never began teaching, was actually brought down by his own paranoid habits which also made it easier for Crouch to impersonate him. So, while she was telling the truth -- DD knew it would bring out the worst in Snape and cause him to leave Hogwarts--she was still misleading us a bit. JKR actually reminds me of Snape sometimes...or maybe he reminds me of her. I mean that in the best possible way, of course. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 3 03:10:39 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:10:39 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141069 >Vivian wrote: > I'm rereading GoF right now and it's apparent that Crouch Jr. is the > only person in the HP series that realizes what Snape is. Crouch Jr. > knows that Snape is OFH. His interactions with Snape make that very > apparent to me. Read the scene on the staircase again with > this in mind. Barty Jr. is threatening Snape on the stairs. He > secretly knows that Snape is not loyal to any side, and he lets Snape > know it. I love how Snape backs down and goes to his room with his > tail between his legs...HAHA > > (BTW the attitude Crouch Jr. has towards Snape and Draco makes it > very apparent to me that he sees them as two peas in a pod.) Potioncat: Had it been the real Moody on the stairs, covering for Harry and shooing Snape away, it would have been one thing. Had it been an over zealous Professor Moody bouncing ferret Draco on the steps, it would have been hilarious. (In fact, I have to admit, on first read it was.) But once you realize "who" it is and what he's up to, it isn't satisfying at all...at least not to me. I'm not sure Crouch sees Snape as OFH so much as someone who didn't suffer. Barty's point isn't to let Snape know about OFH!, it's to get Snape away so that Crouch can continue in his plot to kill Harry. And it isn't funny that Draco was bounced around, not for his attack on Harry, but because his Dad went free. (Darnit! That really spoils the fun!) What do you think? (on to a side topic here.) did C!M cast a spell to turn Draco into a ferret? Or did he cast a spell to turn Draco into the animal he is most like? Draco is described in ferret-like terms through out the books. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Oct 3 03:15:55 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:15:55 -0000 Subject: Does Snape want Harry to be expelled? WAS: RE: Bullying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141070 PJ replies: > So if instead of doing what he can to keep Harry at school he > wants him expelled, what does that say about Snapes sympathies? houyhnhnm: Snape wants Harry expelled? Does he really? When it's clear he's going to be overruled, it seems to me, he voices the opinion that Harry deserves to be suspended. (I can't remember if he actually calls for him to be expelled or not.) But the two opportunities he has to really make it happen, he blows it off. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 3 03:38:11 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:38:11 EDT Subject: Harry IS Snape! Message-ID: <104.6a28439e.307201a3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141071 Okay, before someone shoves a bezoar down my throat to cure me of whatever brain-befuddling potion this post's title implies I've ingested, let me clarify: *Teenage* Harry IS *teenage* Snape! There, is that better? No? Oh, well, I did try, but I do have my reasons for coming to this conclusion (one I believe is already shared by a few others here). Much of it is based on the excellent posts by Krista and Carol regarding Harry's bias toward Professor Snape, which is so evident in HPB, Chapter 8, Snape Victorious. Though I won't repeat everything they said, in that chapter it's pretty clear Harry's anger and hatred of Snape are out of proportion to anything Snape is doing to him (or has done to him in the past). Yes, Snape's been mean, petty, vindictive--you name it--on a pretty regular basis since Harry came to Hogwarts, but even Harry admits to himself that he is 'clinging' to his notion that Snape is at fault for Sirius's death, just because that belief is so emotionally satisfying. Read: Harry KNOWS that his perspective on Snape is out of whack, certainly calling into doubt his judgment about Snape (which remains stubbornly negative throughout HBP, to the point that he argues with Dumbledore over fetching Snape when he *knows full well* that Snape has already saved saved Dumbledore from one horcrux curse. Harry simply cannot immediately displace his hatred of Snape for anything, not even for Dumbledore's best interests--he has to be pressured into temporarily displacing it.) There are a couple of other moments of note in that chapter which also point to Harry's implacable bias against Snape. Firstly, Harry thinks that though he has *loathed* Snape since their first encounter, it is Snape's attitude toward Sirius that has placed Snape "forever and irrevocably beyond the possibility of Harry's forgiveness...". (I guess no one has told Harry that you should never say "never"! And I also suspect JKR revealed that implacable attitude of Harry's for a purpose-- but more on that in a minute). Secondly, after Snape is named the DADA professor, Harry says savagely, "Well, there's one good thing. Snape'll be gone by the end of the year." After Ron asks why, and Harry reminds him of the DADA curse, Harry adds (with what I am certain is complete sincerity) "I'm going to be keeping my fingers crossed for another death..." And Hermoine predictably reacts with shock and reproach, while Ron says "reasonably" (showing Ron can be rational on the subject of Snape, while Harry has no such ability) that Snape might go back to teaching Potions the next year. Harry really hates Snape. I mean, he really, REALLY hates Snape. He would be very happy if Snape were dead, no less. (And thanks again to Krista for pointing out what a goldmine this chapter is on Harry's feelings for Snape, which JKR goes to great lengths to detail over several pages). Anyway, back to my theory, and to teenage Snape. We know that teenage Snape *loathed* James Potter. Really, REALLY loathed him. He gave James no latitude, no free passes, nothing. Not even when James saved his life. He dismissed that act as self-serving, even as a deliberate manipulation that put Snape in James's debt. I think we can say Snape would have been perfectly content for James to die, and when James *did* die, it's doubtful he shed any tears at all. In fact, he probably cursed James, as he tells Harry with fury that James was too arrogant to listen to him. (Note that being content for James to die does not mean Snape wanted to murder James, just as Harry doesn't want to murder Snape--at least not in Chapter 8--just that each would be happy to see their respective nemesis's dead and gone forever. Or so they think.) The catch with Snape, of course, is that Snape never grew out of his hatred of James. A hatred that was always out of proportion to James's crimes. (Especially since it's reasonable to assume that Snape was as guilty as James in their back and forth cursing and hexing attacks). James may have hexed and humiliated Snape, but he grew out of it. And even after that, Snape still insisted on seeing James as the same arrogant bully, despite the fact that James quit hexing students (probably including Snape), and was good enough to be loved by a woman the caliber of Lily Evans. And despite the fact that James fought and died protecting Lily and their son, an act that would have some mitigating effect on most people's opinions. But Snape is not most people, and unfortunately neither is Harry in this regard. His hatred of Snape mirrors Snape's hatred of James (and, yes, Snape provoked Harry's enmity by his words and actions, but Harry's hatred has grown into a living, breathing entity, far beyond what is healthy). Harry sees Snape through the same narrow lens in which Snape sees James. Harry doesn't acknowledge or care that Snape has saved his life more than once, most recently by sending the Order to the DoM (again it's more satisfying to blame Snape for Sirius's death than to credit Snape with helping save Harry and his friends). Harry doesn't acknowledge any positive action by Snape, up to and including the list of lives he's saved that directly benefited Harry, including Dumbeldore, and later Draco from Harry's own foolishness. Just as Snape gave James no credit for positive acts, and has continued that attitude to a point toward his son (what credit Snape may or may not give Harry is a subject for another post) so Harry gives Snape no credit for his positive acts. And thus we see that teenage Harry is just like teenage Snape in this regard. The big question, the issue that I think is going to prove one of the most critical in HP, and deliberately so on the part of JKR, is whether adult Harry will become adult Snape. It's a real possibility if Harry can't evaluate Snape's actions, both good and bad, without his own personal bias coloring that evaluation (as Snape still cannot do with James). If this is to be a central issue/theme of HP, it does require that Snape be DDM or at least OFH, and because this theme *has* been set up so obviously in Chapter 8 with Harry's unreasonable hatred of Snape, I think this whole scene is another strong piece of support for DDM!Snape. If Snape turned out to be ESE as Harry suspected all along--sometimes *irrationally* by his own tacit admission--then Harry has little opportunity to willingly release this destructive and misplaced hatred against a man who hasn't earned that level of enmity (don't scream, Snape-haters-we're talking about Harry's feelings through HBP Chapter 8!). JKR might pull it off but it will have much more impact for Harry and for readers if Snape is DDM. In that case it will be necessary for Harry to recognize Snape's positive actions--saving Harry, being Dumbledore's man up to and including risking his own life and in the end giving up that life, either literally or meaningfully (if Snape doesn't die but must live with knowing he killed the one man who actually cared about him, even if in the cause of Good), as well as whatever else Harry may learn--and then evaluate them against Snape's negative actions to render final judgment. Harry must set aside his child's bias, his child's hatred, just as James did, if he is to grow up to be truly like his father, rather than becoming eternally hateful and embittered like Snape. It's an interesting irony. Snape believes Harry *is* just like James, yet Snape never saw and still does not see the whole James Potter, the boy who grew out of his childish ways to become a good man, and died with dignity. If Harry learns to see the whole Snape--not just the mean, vindictive teacher, but the man who stayed loyal to Dumbledore no matter what was asked of him, and who helped (will help) Harry defeat Voldemort both by protecting him and giving him tools he'd need for that final battle, even if Snape did so with a great deal of belligerence--then Harry will win in a way that Snape never can and never will--by becoming not just a hero, but a good man, just like his father. This also means Harry must forgive Snape, despite his childish determination in HBP Chapter 6 that that will never happen. And, yes, Snape should ask for forgiveness. Snape needs forgiveness as much as Harry needs to forgive. But HP is not about Snape. It's about Harry. In the scheme of things, Snape just *doesn't* matter, so whether he seeks forgiveness or accepts it is moot. But Harry *must* forgive, to become the hero and to leave childhood behind for manhood. (I know some fans demand vengeance, but vengeance is the purview of people like Snape, who gets his revenge against all those he believes wronged him by tormenting anyone who is in a position to be victimized, i.e., is weaker than him, much as he was at one time weaker than his perceived tormentors. (Indeed it is a twisted mirror into which Snape peers.) I will close (really!) by saying I do sympathize with Snape, which isn't exactly a secret. I think he is more sad than bad. If he's DDM as I do believe, he has made a genuine effort to atone for his crimes, in the best way he knows how, which is sadly deficient in many aspects. But it is genuine. As Dumbledore said, it is our choices that define us. Snape has made some very bad ones, and he still keeps making them. And, one way or another, he must pay for them. If this can be considered a theory, how about: Harry *Isn't* Snape, So Yes, Forgiving Is Tantamount To Obtaining Self-possession, And Most Importantly, Achieving Manhood Not Oppressively Tainted. Translation to acronym: H.I.S.S.Y. F.I.T. T.O. S.A.M. I. A.M. N.O.T. (You know, if S.A.M. alternately stands for Snape And Malfoy. Erm, it is my first try, so I may have overthought it!) --Oh, Carol, the title "Snape Victorious" seems an obvious reference to Snape achieving his oft-voiced desire of being DADA professor, though like everything within the HP universe, it may have more obscure meaning also--Snape tears down the last shreds of Harry's ability to view him with any kind of objectivity, thus Snape is victorious in planting a seed of heedless malice toward others that could become Harry's downfall in his battle with Voldemort. (Snape, you stupid, obtuse man!) It's a thought, anyway! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 03:51:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:51:03 -0000 Subject: Snape being punished by Fake!Moody . WAS: Bullying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141072 > Potioncat: > Had it been the real Moody on the stairs, covering for Harry and > shooing Snape away, it would have been one thing. Had it been an over > zealous Professor Moody bouncing ferret Draco on the steps, it would > have been hilarious. (In fact, I have to admit, on first read it was.) > > But once you realize "who" it is and what he's up to, it isn't > satisfying at all...at least not to me. Alla: Oh, I agree with you if it were to turn out that it was Real!Moody doing all those things to Snape, it would have been even more satisfactory to me, since it would mean that good guy finally interfered to put Snape into his place. I am still hoping for example that I will see Remus punching Snape in book 7 really hard, for example, but I doubt that is going to happen any time soon. :-) But as I said upthread - I will take what I can get. Whoever makes Snape suffer even for a short while , I am perfectly fine with it. ( I don't have to say there that I don't advocate an eye for an eye in RL, etc. You know that, right? :-) But this is a beauty of fiction. I can imagine that bad guy ( IMO of course) will get his dues in most unpleasant way, because nobody will get hurt :-)) I think I would even be happy if Voldemort makes Snape to suffer in book 7 IF that would not be some kind of gruesome, violent punishment ( cruciatus, death, etc.), but some painful blow to Snape's pride. AND I still want Voldemort to die most slow and painful death. :-) I just realised something else about the scene between Snape and Barty Jr. As I said upthread that IMO there are two villains ( of different variety or maybe not) in this scene. I am perfectly happy with Barty Jr. fate now. I KNOW that he got his dues, he was punished.... should we say more than enough? I got my emotional satisfaction for Barty's wrongdoings, while for Snape's wrongdoings, I as a reader am so far from being emotionally satisfied yet. It is probably another reason why I am not bothered by that scene even though I know that it partially lead to Harry's have to go through Graveyard. I know that Barty was punished for that. Hmm, I think I am bubbling here. I have to think about it. Although, who knows, maybe Snape will indeed suffer remorse after he killed Dumbledore. So, if he will indeed torture himself enough and I will see at least some small part of it, I will be fine with that too. As I said several times, conflicted!Snape is the only version of good Snape that I can understand after HBP. Oh, and of course Draco's punishment was hilarious to me on the first read too. It still was satisfactory AND at the same time sadistic thing to do even on the second and third read. Potioncat: > I'm not sure Crouch sees Snape as OFH so much as someone who didn't > suffer. Barty's point isn't to let Snape know about OFH!, it's to get > Snape away so that Crouch can continue in his plot to kill Harry. Alla: Oh, I don't know. If we are indeed missing some pieces of the evidence about Snape's true allegiances, I think it is quite possible that Barty will take a pleasure in taking Snape down a notch by letting him know that he ( Barty) knows that he is not truly loyal to DD, but only loyal to himself. Of course Barty wanted to get Snape away, but those two goals are not exclusive, IMO. JMO, Alla, who apologises for incoherency of this post, since she is very tired. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 04:14:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 04:14:12 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <104.6a28439e.307201a3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141073 Juli: > Okay, before someone shoves a bezoar down my throat to cure me > of whatever brain-befuddling potion this post's title implies I've ingested, > let me clarify: *Teenage* Harry IS *teenage* Snape! Alla: Well, funnily enough, even though I would not go that far I certainly believe that f Dumbledore meant for any lessons to be learned, he had in mind the lesson that it is NOT healthy to be like Snape, that nursing twenty year old grudges against DEAD men is never healthy and Harry should do his best and not be like Snape, but no I would not go that far,simply because I believe that it is a possibility that Harry's hatred of Snape is not THAT irrational as one may think. :-) Juli: > Though I won't repeat everything they said, in that chapter it's pretty > clear Harry's anger and hatred of Snape are out of proportion to > anything Snape is doing to him (or has done to him in the past). > Yes, Snape's been mean, petty, vindictive--you name it--on a pretty > regular basis since Harry came to Hogwarts, but even Harry admits > to himself that he is 'clinging' to his notion that Snape is at fault for > Sirius's death, just because that belief is so emotionally satisfying. Alla: Well, except for the fact that Snape may be REALLY at fault for Sirius' death. I realise that possibility that Snape may be telling the truth in "Spinner's End" is not viewed as a strong one, but I think that it IS a possibility. And what does Snape say there? "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps, you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emeline Vance and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off." - HBP, p.30. Julie: > Read: Harry KNOWS that his perspective on Snape is out of whack, to the point that he argues with > Dumbledore over fetching Snape when he *knows full well* that Snape > has already saved saved Dumbledore from one horcrux curse. Alla: Erm... I think that whether Harry's perspective on Snape is out of whack is really, really remains to be seen. And as to Harry's reluctance to fetch Snape, well, he may be not so wrong, IMO. I mean, unless you are convinced that DD was dying, which I am not, then we have alive DD before Snape came and dead DD afterwards. Julie: The big question, the issue that I think is going to > prove one of the most critical in HP, and deliberately so on the part > of JKR, is whether adult Harry will become adult Snape. > If this is to be a central issue/theme of HP, it does require that > Snape be DDM or at least OFH, and because this theme *has* > been set up so obviously in Chapter 8 with Harry's unreasonable > hatred of Snape, I think this whole scene is another strong piece > of support for DDM!Snape. If Snape turned out to be ESE as Harry > suspected all along--sometimes *irrationally* by his own tacit > admission--then Harry has little opportunity to willingly release this > destructive and misplaced hatred against a man who hasn't earned > that level of enmity (don't scream, Snape-haters-we're talking about > Harry's feelings through HBP Chapter 8!). Alla: I completely disagree. it would be VERY satisfying to me if Harry forgives the man who is truly guilty of all the things he said in Spinner's End. I think it would be much harder for Harry to do so than to acknowledge Snape's positive actions if there are any. No, Snape who helped made Harry an orphan, Snape who killed Harry's mentor in front of Harry's eyes is REALLY hard to forgive and if Harry manages to do so, I think he can truly call himself a hero. JMO, Alla. Great post, Julie. From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 05:51:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:51:25 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141074 potioncat: What do you think? (on to a side topic here.) did C!M cast a spell to turn Draco into a ferret? Or did he cast a spell to turn Draco into the animal he is most like? Draco is described in ferret-like terms through out the books. vmonte: I don't know? Hopefully Draco won't be around Buckbeak/Witherwings if he ever turns into an animagus ferret. LOL! Alla: I think I would even be happy if Voldemort makes Snape to suffer in book 7 IF that would not be some kind of gruesome, violent punishment ( cruciatus, death, etc.), but some painful blow to Snape's pride. AND I still want Voldemort to die most slow and painful death. :-) vmonte: I would like to see Snape unable to cast a patronus, and then see Harry cast his to save Snape's life. Snape really wanted to see Sirius's soul sucked out in PoA; I wouldn't mind him feeling a little bit of that terror himself. Vivian From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 3 06:02:58 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:02:58 EDT Subject: JokeShops/Patronus, etc, etc. Message-ID: <96.3111d325.30722392@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141075 Valky wrote: << I was working on a theory of Snape sending his Patronus to the Trio with anonymous messages. >> Catlady wrote: Messages via (uniquely personal) Patronus aren't exactly *anonymous*, just that the kids don't recognize the signature and no doubt come up with many wrong certainties. Julie now: I think Snape is going to change his patronus, and then communicate with the Order and/or the trio through the new patronus. There has to be a reason for that brief and isolated mention that Tonks changed her patronus. That knowledge served no real purpose in Book 6, so I'm betting JKR put it there familiarize us with the concept and foreshadow its importance in Book 7. And no one needs an anonymous patronus more than Snape! Also, I do realize the Order might be suspicious of a patronus they didn't recognize, but if the patronus has specific connections to the side of good or an implied relationship to Dumbledore (a unicorn or a phoenix patronus, for instance), the Order might assume Dumbledore had prearranged it, or had recruited someone to work behind the scenes for the Order (or that the patronus belonged to the mystery Order member JKR says we haven't properly met yet). In this way Snape could also send messages to the trio, messages they would likely accept as coming from a friend/ally, since the Order wouldn't be able to identify the patronus as his. bibphile wrote: << On a side note, am I the only one who thought it was very stupid of Harry to just try spells on people when he had no idea what they did. >> Catlady wrote: I thought it was SO stupid that I thought that the book was magically seducing him, something like the Riddle diary. It didn't have verbal conversations with him and I don't think it thought for itself, but it maybe had some charm on it to magnetically attract Harry, make him trust it and want to try out all its special spells. Maybe Hermione's intense dislike of it and Ron's inability to read it were also caused by magic -- if Hermione and Ron had both had the same reaction, it would be easy to believe that the spell simply included repelling everyone but the 'owner'. Unfortunately, I don't know how well a mere spell could tailor the type of repulsion to the repulsee's personality without 'thinking for itself'. But, y'know, a spell on the book telling it to belong to Harry could cause it to move itself from Snape's bookcase to the Potions classroom cabinet. Julie now: I don't really buy the idea that the Potions book magically *seduced* Harry, since Harry seemed quite in character to me when he used the potions from the book. Harry does tend to be impulsive, though not so much as Sirius, thankfully. But I do like the idea that a spell on the book caused it to find its way to Harry. I've been bothered by the amazing coincidence of Harry and that particular Potions book just happening to find each other. Perhaps it wasn't an amazing coincidence at all... Betsy wrote: << The reader has to assume so much (they didn't really mean for Dudley to suffocate to death, they would have felt bad if Montague had died, they wouldn't have let Katie Bell bleed to death, >> Catlady wrote: Well, they WOULDN'T have let Katie bleed to death. Even if neither of them was dating her, she was a valuable player for their Quidditch team. Julie now: LOL! (And I actually did!) Glad to know the twins have their priorities straight! Seriously, I do assume they aren't deliberately *trying* to kill anyone, but they do sometimes push the envelope a bit too far. Personally, I think I'd feel safer being on Snape's bad side than the twins' bad side! Valky also wrote: It occurs to me that the Diary and the Ring were probably destroyed in different ways. I deduce that Dumbledore may have attempted to re-enact to the best of his ability, the way Harry destroyed the Diary, but he could easily have discounted something important to the process, something small that Harry did, but he didn't. An error with the unfortunate consequence of leaving Dumbledore with no choice but to die sometime in the near future or give up all hope of defeating Voldemort. I'd call that a 'huge' mistake, wouldn't you? Julie says: Might Voldemort's protection have become more deadly and more sophisticated as time passed? The Diary would have been his first horcrux after all. Oh, and I agree about Dumbledore's huge mistake. Makes sense. It also fits well with the idea that Snape did something to delay the full effect of the ring horcrux curse, perhaps using a stopper death potion or a draught of living death to stop death temporarily from proceeding past Dumbledore's wand hand. Then Dumbledore went and unstoppered it with that cave potion... Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 06:42:40 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 06:42:40 -0000 Subject: James Friends and Snapes choices WAS RE Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141076 Valky wrote: > > So my assessment of James generally a nice guy, who deliberately > > and openly sets himself against things that he thinks are wrong > > and evil. > > His groups of best friends - A Werewolf, a Blood Traitor, and a > > virtual Squib. > > colebiancardi says: > Peter is not a Squib. Not even a virtual one. He can change his > form to an animal, he was able to be the secret keeper, he blasted a > street full of muggles, and stayed hidden as a rat for 12 years. He > also was able to escape Sirius when caught again. I think Peter is > a lot of things, but a Squib? Valky: lol, yeah you're right, but I think we can say the a similar thing about Neville Longbottom, now, down the track some, that weve seen he is not really that hopeless, and one day he might even turn out to be really quite good, but when Neville first arrived, he was a virtual squib, and that reputation has stuck with him even though he has improved quite a bit since then. It seems to be similar with Peter, he got better at magic, but his reputation stuck with him, even Sirius who knew him the whole time was shocked and amazed at the getaway Peter managed for himself. So when I say virtual squib, I kind of mean as a new arrival at Hogwarts he was, I gather, really squiblike and later he was squiblike by reputation only, he hid the rest really well. > > >Valky: > > Dumbledore offers him a hard choice, that suits > > his essential neutral character and turns it to the fight for > > good. Snape is an excellent double agent. It was a Hard choice to > > be a spy for the Order, the losing team, as so many have pointed > > out, but it was an easy choice for Snape to be a spy, because that > > is his true person. > > > > colebiancardi: > > but Snape was already a spy for Voldemort at the time he switched > sides. So, how was that an easy choice for him, already being a > spy, to turn and spy for Dumbledore, the *losing team* at the time? > Since Snape was already a spy, Valky: I think we have crossed wires on this. I am not sure if you're misreading me or if I am misreading you. I'll try to clarify. I think that being a spy (of sorts) is in Snapes nature. It's an easy choice for him to decide to spy in itself, for any reason that crosses his mind. And he's very good at it because of his excellence in taking control of, handling, and manipulating his environment. But spying for the order, genuinely spying for Dumbledore, is a hard choice to make, he would set himself against his friends by doing it, and he does seem to still genuinely like the Malfoys. It would take for him to act purely on his belief in thoroughness, order and diligence, and truly admit that the people he has liked are out of order, that it is not diligent to help Voldemort's band of followers, his (Snape's) companions. That is the difficult choice that according to Dumbledore he made genuinely, and according to others, he appears to have not made IMO. Valky: All we need to know now is whether Snape made the hard choice > > or the easy choice, . I lean towards hard choice now, myself, colebiancardi: > > I also lean towards the hard choice, but not > because being a spy is in his true nature. > > not arguing, just pointing out a couple things > > great post, BTW > > colebiancardi Valky: Thanks :D I will save the details for another post, but one nagging reason in the back of my mind that makes me think Snape must have made the hard choice was that he looks to have killed Dumbledore. To be honest I don't think *anyone* could have done that without the sincere efforts of Dumbledore himself helping it along. Valky From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 09:40:57 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:40:57 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Fake!Moody (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141077 > Alla: > > I cannot speak for Vmonte, of course, but I think that the only > aspect she is cheering Crouch for is his success in making Snape to > back down, whether this is for right or wrong purposes. > > And, I have to say, I absolutely share that, BUT not because it was > an OK thing to do, but because that was to me the sort of poetic > justice, carmic punishment, vicarious retribution, pick the term. Maybe it was. But I must say that when Barty Crouch was dementor- kissed in the end of GoF it was even more of a poetic justice and "karmic punishment". a_svirn From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Oct 3 09:55:56 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:55:56 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141078 > Alla: > And what does Snape say there? > > "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him > on the Order. It led, as perhaps, you have guessed, to the recent > capture and murder of Emeline Vance and it certainly helped dispose > of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him > off." - HBP, p.30. > Hmmm! I'm very interested in this. How could Snape have provided the information that led to the murder of Sirius Black. As I remember it, Kreacher sent Harry to the MOM whilst Sirius was elsewhere in the castle. Snape then provided the information to the Order that led to their arrival at MOM to assist Harry (if we believe DD). Even if Snape was trying to lure Sirius to MOM, his actions ensured the rest of the order and DD turned up and thwarted Voldemort. Which also leads me to believe that his assistance in the capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, was probably also not the original intention of his actions. Brothergib - (Snape: Is he bitter? Yes. Is he twisted? Yes. Is he fighting for good? YES!! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 10:59:23 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:59:23 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <104.6a28439e.307201a3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141079 Juli: > Harry really hates Snape. I mean, he really, REALLY hates Snape. > He would be very happy if Snape were dead, no less. (And thanks > again to Krista for pointing out what a goldmine this chapter is on > Harry's feelings for Snape, which JKR goes to great lengths to > detail over several pages). *(snip)* > This also means Harry must forgive Snape, despite his childish > determination in HBP Chapter 6 that that will never happen. And, > yes, Snape should ask for forgiveness. Snape needs forgiveness > as much as Harry needs to forgive. But HP is not about Snape. It's > about Harry. In the scheme of things, Snape just *doesn't* matter, > so whether he seeks forgiveness or accepts it is moot. But Harry > *must* forgive, to become the hero and to leave childhood behind > for manhood. (I know some fans demand vengeance, but vengeance > is the purview of people like Snape, who gets his revenge against > all those he believes wronged him by tormenting anyone who is in a > position to be victimized, i.e., is weaker than him, much as he was at > one time weaker than his perceived tormentors. (Indeed it is a twisted > mirror into which Snape peers.) Ceridwen: Harry must indeed get over his hatred, irrational or rational as it may be, in order to defeat Voldemort. The most potent thing to vanquish love, is hate. And Harry cannot have a single ounce of hate in him when he goes to the final confrontation. I don't know how Voldemort views the Power of Love theory, but he can use the hatred in Harry's heart to turn him just enough so that he cannot harm, let alone vanquish, LV. Like that scene in Star Wars, where Luke is urged to just let go and allow the Dark Side to take him (then his training will be complete). Revenge is hatred directed toward a goal. So, he cannot have revenge on his mind, either. He can't just shove these feelings aside, IMO, or LV can dredge them up. He has to let go. But, on the Dark Side parallel, it does seem as if Harry's been training himself in the Dark Arts. Trying to cast Crucio, for instance, not once, but three times. Hating in the way he's hating. Obsessing over Draco's actions. Obsessing over Snape's perceived role in Sirius's death. If he actually gives in, even thinking he can turn his hatred to good use (casting the perfect AK against Voldemort, for instance), then he's lost, and so is the WW. (Oy, shades of LOTR, of Boromir, he who could have been a hero on a higher plane, if he hadn't obsessed over the Ring) JKR is setting us up to see the Power of Love. And we're all waiting for that explanation/reveal in book 7. Harry will have to be more like Lily, in order to grow up like James. Lily didn't seem, at least in the Pensieve scene, to have much animosity toward Snape. Hurt feelings over the slur, yes. But, no hatred. And it was her Power of Love that protected Harry from death, from the DiaryHorcrux, from all the things which could have happened to him at Privet Drive but didn't. He'll have to stop trying to be just like James, who had to consciously change his behaviors, and try to be like Lily, who apparently *didn't hate*. Others have mentioned parallels between Harry and Snape, and the hatred is just another to fit alongside being bullied, and bullying in return. Yes, he has bullied, and harrassed Draco by following him around. Obsession like that is petty, and grows to blend with hate. The Hero's Journey is intensely personal, and spiritual as well as physical. Harry has the bravery, he has the ability not to care that he might die. He seems to be a powerful enough wizard just by birth. His flaw is hatred and its cousin, obsession. In order to complete both the physical and spiritual journeys, he must expunge all traces of his hate and his obsession with catching his enemies in their wrongdoing (another likeness to Snape). He must conquer the monster within (which is why I was surprised to find that JKR meant Ginny for his true love - the monster in his chest sounds so... base!) before he can vanquish the monster without. Or he is in danger of being assimilated by the monster. He could give in and become the next Dark Lord, at the worst-case extension. Ceridwen, who may be done moralizing for right now. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 3 12:24:14 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:24:14 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <104.6a28439e.307201a3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141080 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > Anyway, back to my theory, and to teenage Snape. We know that > teenage Snape *loathed* James Potter. Really, REALLY loathed > him. He gave James no latitude, no free passes, nothing. Not even > when James saved his life. He dismissed that act as self-serving, > even as a deliberate manipulation that put Snape in James's debt. > I think we can say Snape would have been perfectly content for > James to die, and when James *did* die, it's doubtful he shed any > tears at all. In fact, he probably cursed James, as he tells Harry > with fury that James was too arrogant to listen to him. (Note that > being content for James to die does not mean Snape wanted to > murder James, just as Harry doesn't want to murder Snape--at > least not in Chapter 8--just that each would be happy to see their > respective nemesis's dead and gone forever. Or so they think.) > The catch with Snape, of course, is that Snape never grew out of > his hatred of James. A hatred that was always out of proportion to > James's crimes. (Especially since it's reasonable to assume that > Snape was as guilty as James in their back and forth cursing and > hexing attacks). James may have hexed and humiliated Snape, but > he grew out of it. And even after that, Snape still insisted on seeing > James as the same arrogant bully, despite the fact that James quit > hexing students (probably including Snape), and was good enough > to be loved by a woman the caliber of Lily Evans. And despite the > fact that James fought and died protecting Lily and their son, an act > that would have some mitigating effect on most people's opinions. Marianne: As always, an interesting post. However, where in this view of Snape, does Snape's tale of remorse come in? If he has firmly held onto his hatred of James from school age through the present, (which I agree he has, like a barnacle to a hull) then it seems like the remorse he told Dumbledore about is a somewhat selective remorse, if indeed it existed at all. And for me, that still calls into question how much Snape can be believed. Of course, DD could have been selectvie when he told Harry that tale which implied that James was one of the people Snape felt remorse about. Maybe that was just a little, white lie. :-) From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Oct 3 12:20:17 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:20:17 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <104.6a28439e.307201a3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote > If this is to be a central issue/theme of HP, it does require that > Snape be DDM or at least OFH, and because this theme *has* > been set up so obviously in Chapter 8 with Harry's unreasonable > hatred of Snape, I think this whole scene is another strong piece > of support for DDM!Snape. If Snape turned out to be ESE as Harry > suspected all along--sometimes *irrationally* by his own tacit > admission--then Harry has little opportunity to willingly release this > destructive and misplaced hatred against a man who hasn't earned > that level of enmity (don't scream, Snape-haters-we're talking about > Harry's feelings through HBP Chapter 8!). JKR might pull it off but > it will have much more impact for Harry and for readers if Snape > is DDM. In that case it will be necessary for Harry to recognize > Snape's positive actions--saving Harry, being Dumbledore's man > up to and including risking his own life and in the end giving up > that life, either literally or meaningfully (if Snape doesn't die but > must live with knowing he killed the one man who actually cared > about him, even if in the cause of Good), as well as whatever else > Harry may learn--and then evaluate them against Snape's negative > actions to render final judgment. Harry must set aside his child's > bias, his child's hatred, just as James did, if he is to grow up to be > truly like his father, rather than becoming eternally hateful and > embittered like Snape. > I agree that this would be hard to pull off with ESE!Snape, however I don't really see why such a plotline would necessarily require a DDM!Snape or even make such a thing particularly likely. In fact, I would say that it makes OFH!Snape much more likely. Now the reason for that is this: In order for the power of forgiveness to have its true and most powerful impact, it has to have a transformative effect on BOTH parties. Yes, of course one can craft a believable story in which forgiveness has a beneficial effect on only one party, but that does not show the full possibilities of forgiving. The above discussion has focused on the beneficial effect of forgiveness for Harry. As far as it goes, it's well and good. Frankly, I'm not to impressed with it as an explanation for HP, as I think it confuses HP with Star Wars, and the Dark Arts with the Dark Side, and in general reads all sorts of unwarrented themes from one saga into the other, as well as bringing up that hackneyed chestnut the Hero's Journey. But taken in a more restrictive sense, that it would probably be good for Harry to not give in to hatred of Snape or anyone else, I have no argument with it. But what about the benefits of forgiveness for SNAPE? One very severe problem I have with both DDM and ESE theories of Snape is that both make him into a more or less static character who cannot grown and change, or fall and change, through the course of the series. He is either ESE and that's it or he's DDM and that's it -- he is what he is and everything he does flows from that essential, unchanging facet of his nature. In effect, he becomes a mere prop. Now, this is of course Harry's story, and as I've said before another danger of many of the Snape theories is that they threaten to transgress that simple fact. Still, one would hope the other characters could have more dynamic than simply playing a part dictated by a static role as ESE or DDM. I grant that JKR is not as good a writer as I once believed and hoped, but still I think she has better in her than that. If the fullness of the power of forgiveness is to be realized, then SNAPE as well as Harry must experience it as an important and transformative moment. And in order for that to be the case, Snape must have done something to be forgiven for -- and more to the point, something that he himself knows, if only deep inside, that he needs to be forgiven for. At this point in the story, I don't think it would be a believable dynamic for that forgiveness to be about something that happened before Harry came to Hogwarts (that reduces Snape to a static figure again) or about classroom problems (which avoids other issues). Rather it has to be for something that Snape has genuinely done wrong within the scope of the story, something that HAS separated him from the side of the good, and something for which Harry's forgiveness has deep meaning. All of THAT, I think, points to OFH!Snape as the most powerful and likely figure in a saga where the true power of forgiveness is to be illustrated with a Snape/Harry pivot (there are others that could be used, such as Harry/Wormtail). A Snape who, for instance, allowed himself to become entangled in his own webs in Chapter 2 of HBP, and who fell from goodness because of that and his ultimate murder of Dumbledore, is someone who could experience the redemptive power of forgiveness. A DDM!Snape who is utterly convinced that he has been in the right all along and who is just concerned in making the stupid Potter boy see facts is NOT a figure of redemption. That figure would only be a prop for an insipid storyline about cleansing oneself of hatred despite the wrongs done to you -- did I say that would be insipid? I am not at all convinced that the power of love will necessarily turn out to be the power of forgiveness, or if it does that it will necessarily be the Harry/Snape dynamic that will come into play. There are plenty of other candidates for something like that, including Draco, Wormtail, and yes, even Voldemort himself. And if the forgiveness is one-sided, well, Harry becomes a kind of saint- like figure, if not a Christ figure forgiving the world that crucified him. Such is the foundation of a silly and insipid and preachy saga that will make for very good kindling. Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 3 13:52:00 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:52:00 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141082 > Marianne: > As always, an interesting post. However, where in this view of Snape, does Snape's tale of remorse come in? If he has firmly held onto his hatred of James from school age through the present, (which I agree he has, like a barnacle to a hull) then it seems like the remorse he told Dumbledore about is a somewhat selective remorse, if indeed it existed at all. And for me, that still calls into question how much Snape can be believed. Pippin: The one place I disagree with Julie's excellent post is the idea that Snape wouldn't have been sorry to learn that James was dead. Hatred, no matter how irrational, is not the same thing as wanting to kill someone. No one would deny that Harry hates Draco; all the same Harry was horrified by the result of his spell and surely would have been sorry if Draco had died -- not because he cared about Draco but because Harry did not want to be a killer. Quirrell distinguishes between those who hate and those who are willing to kill: "But Snape always seemed to hate me so much." "Oh, he does," said Quirrell casually, "heavens, yes. He was at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know? They loathed each other. But he never wanted you _dead_." Is it such a stretch to think that despite trying to get James expelled, and hexing him whenever he got the chance, despite joining the Death Eaters, Snape did not want to kill James? Bella has her doubts about whether Snape has what it takes... "you were once again absent while the rest of us ran dangers" "the usual slithering out of action" Though surely Snape hated Sirius as much as he hated James, he didn't think, even in PoA that he had reason to kill him, "Give me a reason and I swear I will" despite the fact that he believed Sirius was a Death Eater, a traitor, a murderer, and had once tried to kill *him*. Perhaps teenaged Snape, like Draco, fancied he could become a killer, but was revolted when faced with the reality. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Oct 3 14:41:21 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:41:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape vs Fake!Moody (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004a01c5c828$86dc9fe0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141083 Maybe it was. But I must say that when Barty Crouch was dementor- kissed in the end of GoF it was even more of a poetic justice and "karmic punishment". a_svirn Sherry now: I was horrified when Barty was kissed. Even though I knew what he had done, the idea of *anyone* being kissed by a dementor was terrible. Even though I believe Snape killed Dumbledore, and that it was not a plan or mercy killing, i would be appalled if his fate was to be kissed by a dementor. He would have sent Sirius and Lupin to that fate, but I would be at the head of the pack, picketing and chanting not to have him or any other person kissed. So, at least I'm consistent in a way. I can't imagine any good reason for Snape to kill Dumbledore, any reason that would make sense or excuse it. But then, i can't imagine anyone's crimes, no matter how terrible, deserving the dementor kiss. Punishment, sure. even Azkaban. Powers taken away, if that can be done, but no dementors. They are terrible creatures. Shudder. Sherry From erikog at one.net Mon Oct 3 14:15:38 2005 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:15:38 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141084 Juli writes, as part of her great Harry-is-TeenSnape post: > > Yes, Snape's been mean, petty, vindictive--you name it--on a pretty > > regular basis since Harry came to Hogwarts, but even Harry admits > > to himself that he is 'clinging' to his notion that Snape is at > fault for > > Sirius's death, just because that belief is so emotionally > satisfying.= And Alla says: > Well, except for the fact that Snape may be REALLY at fault for > Sirius' death. I realise that possibility that Snape may be telling > the truth in "Spinner's End" is not viewed as a strong one, but I > think that it IS a possibility. That's not the point of this particular debate, however--we're discussing the grounds on which Harry bases his loathing of Snape, not Snape outside of Harry's vision. What is being argued is that *Harry* bases his hatred of Snape *solely* on the emotional gratification he gets from it, and he knows it. (Hence the "Harry clung to this belief..." sentence.) Whether there are other logical reasons for an external observer to doubt Snape and think him complicit in Sirius' murder isn't the point. The only accusation * Harry* throws at Snape is that he used nasty names to goad Sirius' temper. In short, Harry wants to believe Snape guilty of murder *just because* he made snide comments. In Harry's reflections in that chapter, he doesn't bring up a single logical argument to connect Snape with Sirius' murder--just that Snape didn't like Sirius and he made nasty comments that provoked Sirius' temper. If Harry actually had legitimate reason to accuse Snape, that'd be one thing. But all he has, which he admits to himself, is the *desire* to blame Snape. Krista (who really likes the idea that the greatest hero is the one who forgives) From psycodude04 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 09:17:19 2005 From: psycodude04 at yahoo.com (Myra) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 02:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Could Snape have PTSD? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051002091719.75102.qmail@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141085 Eggplant wrote: It's remarkable that Harry isn't suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after all the hell he's been through, but Snape? All Snape has experienced is that minor little bullying incident many years ago; and if something like that can send him into a lifetime emotional funk then he is quite a wimp. Harry is made of stronger stuff. Myra: Yes. Maybe Snape is just weak, and Harry is a lot stronger. Not everyone deals the same. Harry has to be strong to retains his sanity and stuff after everything he's been through. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 3 16:23:07 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:23:07 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141086 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Marianne: > > As always, an interesting post. However, where in this view of > Snape, does Snape's tale of remorse come in? If he has firmly held > onto his hatred of James from school age through the present, > (which I agree he has, like a barnacle to a hull) then it seems like > the remorse he told Dumbledore about is a somewhat selective > remorse, if indeed it existed at all. And for me, that still calls > into question how much Snape can be believed. > > Pippin: > > The one place I disagree with Julie's excellent post is the idea that > Snape wouldn't have been sorry to learn that James was dead. > Hatred, no matter how irrational, is not the same thing as wanting > to kill someone. No one would deny that Harry hates Draco; all the > same Harry was horrified by the result of his spell and surely would > have been sorry if Draco had died -- not because he cared about > Draco but because Harry did not want to be a killer. > > Is it such a stretch to think that despite trying to get James > expelled, and hexing him whenever he got the chance, > despite joining the Death Eaters, Snape did not want to kill > James? > > Perhaps teenaged Snape, like Draco, fancied he could become > a killer, but was revolted when faced with the reality. Marianne: I'm not saying that Snape wanted to kill James himself. I just don't buy that he was seized with regret once someone else killed James. Yes, Snape may very well not wanted to raise his wand and perform an actual murder. Bella may be right about him and he has managed to avoid some of the messier actions of DEs. He may even be revolted by the idea of killing. However, he seems to have okay with passing on the words of the prophecy, which he must have known would put other people in mortal danger. The idea that Snape would have no regrets about nameless people he has put in danger, but suddenly change sides in a war once his nemesis was killed doesn't click with me. Given the history between James and Snape, I find it hard to swallow that, in the midst of this horrific, years-long war, when all sorts of people were dying and disappearing, Snape would suddenly find himself in a fit of remorse over the death of his long-time enemy. Marianne From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 15:45:15 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:45:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Re: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: <1a6.4070e8ae.3070b056@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141087 Julie says: >You can interpret it that way if you like. But canon (if we take >Dumbledore's word) also says that Snape didn't know who the prophecy > referred to, thus he was never *planning* to rid himself of his > nemesis. PJ replies: Sorry, by "he" I was referring to LV, not Snape. I should've been much clearer with that. Julie: >Canon also states that Snape told Dumbledore of the prophecy before > GH, which gave Dumbledore the opportunity to put the Potters into > hiding PJ replies: Why would Snape have to tell Dumbledore about the prophesy since it was Dumbledore rather than Snape (supposedly) who'd heard the entire thing already? Julie: > Again, you can go with your idea that Snape was angry Harry didn't > die with James and Lily, but that takes a lot more twisting of > canon than the straightforward reading that Snape tried to save the > Potters. PJ replies: I said it *could* be read that way - and it easily can. Snape heard part (?) of the prophesy, gave it to LV, LV uses it and becomes Vapormort thus (if ESE) leaving Snape without his real "master", (if OFH!) taking one choice away from Snape and possibly being blamed by the other DEs for giving LV something that would destroy him. It's a more adult reason than simply saying Snape hated Harry because Harry reminded Snape of James, isn't it? Personally I don't believe Snape is an adult so I still believe the reason he hates Harry is James but it doesn't require twisting canon to support the "mad at Harry for not dying" theory either. Julie: > In any case, I think this is a pretty weak argument for > Snape trying to give Voldemort an "automatic win," given that it > had as much chance of working (which Snape well knew) as I have of > learning to fly a broom. PJ replies: I'm talking canon and you're discussing what Snape felt, what he knew... Sorry but we *don't* know any of that! All we know for a fact is what is canon, the rest is suppostiion. I see the guesswork as the weaker arguement. PJ earlier: > 3) Add to that the fact that in canon Snape takes the UV and > follows through by performing the AK on Dumbledore. Not canon but > still suspicious to me is the question of whether Snape made sure > Harry would not learn Occlumency even though he knew the reason > behind that need. Julie: > Sorry, but this again isn't much of an argument. We have no proof > Snape *made sure* Harry would not learn Occlumency. Not even much > evidence in support. PJ replies: That is why I said I had no canon for it, just my suspicions.... We seem to have read that part quite differently. Julie: > The Tower scene and Snape's AK remain shrouded in doubt. Yes, we > know what Harry *saw*, and what we saw through him, but we have no > idea what Dumbledore or Snape were thinking, what conversations they > may have had before the Tower scene that might be relevant, or if > they communicated by Legilimency right before Snape's AK. We can't > even be sure if it was an AK, or if there was more than one spell > at work. PJ replies: Ok, so canon works when it's pro Snape but it's questionable when it's not? Then it's pretty useless as a discussion tool. We're told Snape performed the AK on Dumbledore after taking the UV to finish Draco's work if he couldn't. It's fairly straightforward... And yes, new canon in book 7 *could* negate the canon in books 1-6 but for now, that's all we've got to work with. PJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 16:42:31 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:42:31 -0000 Subject: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: <20051002175544.34821.qmail@web61224.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141088 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jaja Redor wrote: > > > ... I just have few comments about the so-called Side-Along > apparition ... > > ... the rest of the DE's know LV wanted Harry for himself, why don't > they just stalk Harry when he's in Hogsmead, grab him then > disapparate? I mean, Draco could just give them info about when's > the next Hogsmead visit right? > ... > > Jaja bboyminn: I think Ginger (separate post) has hit on the key - INTENT. I think one of the reasons Side-Along Apparation (SAA) is used so rarely is because it is relatively dangerous. If you try to apparate with at toddler, and at the moment of disapparation, the toddle sees his favorite toy across the room and decides he wants it, you now have conflicting intent. The toddler wants to be across the room and the mother want to be a her intended destination. I fear that can cause problems. Note in GoF, in the beginning, in Voldemort's conversation with Wormtail, I think the Dark Lord is implying the possibility of kidnapping Harry by using SAA. So, it certainly can be done, but again, if Harry is able to marshall a counter-intent, the SAA kidnap would fail. True, in their defense guidelines the Ministry does recommend SAA, but I think they intend it to be used, not as a matter of course, but as an emergency effort. If the choices are risk the consequences of SAA or be killed by DEs, suddenly the risk of SAA doesn't seem so bad. But I don't think the Ministry is recommending the use of SAA as a routine thing. As a further note; I don't think Harry and Dumbledore using SAA was exactly within the standard rules of apparation. I think Dumbledore was playing by his own rules, though I doubt that given successful completion of SAA, he would have been in much trouble. Of course, returning from the Cave when Harry apparates and brings Dumbledore along, that was certainly against the standard rules, but I think the situation was a sufficient emergency that again it would be forgiven. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 18:25:51 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:25:51 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > Hmmm! I'm very interested in this. How could Snape have provided the > information that led to the murder of Sirius Black. As I remember it, > Kreacher sent Harry to the MOM whilst Sirius was elsewhere in the > castle. Snape then provided the information to the Order that led to > their arrival at MOM to assist Harry (if we believe DD). Even if > Snape was trying to lure Sirius to MOM, his actions ensured the rest > of the order and DD turned up and thwarted Voldemort. There's another option, although this is a complete hypothetic. Dumbledore tells us that Kreacher went to Narcissa, and told her all kinds of damaging material that Voldie used to concoct the plot. But we have nothing to contraindicate Snape doing something along the same lines--something that Dumbledore wouldn't necessarily have known about. I know there is no evidence for this, except for Snape's claim of involvement in Sirius' death. Narcissa doesn't dispute this claim, nor does Bellatrix: several explanations, of course, but one of them is that it's true. -Nora is skilled at the devil's advocate position from experience From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 3 18:51:38 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:51:38 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141090 > > Alla: > > > And what does Snape say there? > > > > "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps, you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emeline Vance and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off." - HBP, p.30. Brother Gib: > Hmmm! I'm very interested in this. How could Snape have provided the information that led to the murder of Sirius Black. As I remember it, Kreacher sent Harry to the MOM whilst Sirius was elsewhere in the castle. Snape then provided the information to the Order that led to their arrival at MOM to assist Harry (if we believe DD). Even if Snape was trying to lure Sirius to MOM, his actions ensured the rest of the order and DD turned up and thwarted Voldemort. Pippin: Dumbledore would want to have Snape pass some genuine information to Voldemort in order to maintain Snape's credibility. Letting Voldie know at once that Sirius had returned to England might be part of that. It would make sense of Dumbledore's sudden insistence that Sirius remain at GP when he'd been allowed to move freely before that. In that case the idea that Sirius was too reckless to be trusted was a cover story -- the real reason he had to stay at GP was that the Death Eaters knew he had come back and would be stalking him. As long as Sirius stayed at GP, Snape could pretend to Voldemort that he would gladly kill Sirius if he got the chance, but after all it would be kind of a giveaway if he did it at Order HQ. Pippin From lizsigners03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 18:14:29 2005 From: lizsigners03 at yahoo.com (Liz Wiser) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:14:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is an unregistered Animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141091 "Bright, white flames had erupted around Dumbledore's body and the table upon which it lay; Higher and higher they rose,obscuring the body. White smoke spiraled into the air and made strange shapes: Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix fly Joyfully into the blue, but the next second the fire had vanished." (HBP p. 645) And Dumbledore told Draco, "He [LV] cannot kill you if you are already dead." (p. 591) I think Dumbledore is a phoenix who had to die to be reborn. Snape's job was to kill Dumbledore, even though he didn't really want to, in order to prevent Draco from having to, and to move Harry into the position to be able to receive Dumbledore's help later without LV realizing it. lizsigners03 From anurim at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 19:23:20 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051003192320.51833.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141092 --- esmith222002 wrote: > Hmmm! I'm very interested in this. How could Snape > have provided the > information that led to the murder of Sirius Black. > As I remember it, > Kreacher sent Harry to the MOM whilst Sirius was > elsewhere in the > castle. Snape then provided the information to the > Order that led to > their arrival at MOM to assist Harry (if we believe > DD). By telling Voldemort about the deep love bond between Harry and Sirius. Which Voldemort would have known anyway, if we believe Dumbledore when he says that the reason why he did not speak to Harry at all, not even look at him, was that he did not want Voldemort to realize the connection between them. Sirius did not take such precautions, so Voldemort would have known anyway how much love there was between him and Harry. So the jury seems still out on how much this point incriminates Snape. Mira From anurim at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 19:25:34 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fwd: [HPforGrownups] re:JokeShops/Patronus/Hagrid/SpinnersEnd/SWAKDEAD/Cleverest/RAB/Twins/DADA Prof Message-ID: <20051003192534.81425.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141093 > Mira wrote : > > << JKR: Prof Snape said I'd like to be Prof of > Defence Against the > Dark Arts please and Prof Dumbledore felt it might > bring out the worst > in Snape >> Catlady wrote: > Since HBP, we now know that that was JKR's little > joke -- it's a > perfectly true statement, because the curse on the > DADA chair brings > out the worst in each DADA teacher. Mira: If by 'brings out' you understand 'brings to light', or rather 'I will have to write about it' then yes, but otherwise the DADA job did not bring out the worst in those who held it, only brought that worst to our eyes. Lockhart was a criminal infatuated with himself before he came to Hogwarts, Umbridge was horrible when she worked for the Ministry too (as Remus could tell us). The DADA job did not have to change Snape's personality only because it was cursed. Mira From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 3 16:47:26 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:47:26 -0400 Subject: Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141094 Carol: >BTW, someone in another thread expressed the idea that expelling a >student necessarily results in having the student's wand broken. Do we >know that for a fact? We have two examples in canon that point that way, yes. First (and the only example we have of a student actually expelled) is Hagrid. He was expelled and his wand was broken. Then in OOtP the first letter Harry gets from the MoM states that he's been expelled from Hogwarts for breaking the decree of underage sorcery and that ministry representatives would be calling at his place of residence shortly to destroy his wand (Pgs 21-22 Scholastic). It appears that any crime worthy of expulsion is also worthy of wand breaking. I can understand this as you wouldn't want a untrained wizard loose in the country with a wand! Some of the trained ones are scary enough. :-) The fact that he'd already received an official warning for the same offense is the reason given for the hearing before the MoM. PJ From rh64643 at appstate.edu Mon Oct 3 17:23:28 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:23:28 -0000 Subject: The Twins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141095 I was reading C.O.S. the other day and I came across something that I found to be odd. During the scene in Chapter 12(pg.210 in the U.S. edition) where Fred and George are making fun of the whole heir of slytherin idea, Gerge says something of note. "Yeah he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged servant." Now up to this point, unless I have missed something fairly crucial, no one knows what is attacking the students, they definitely don't know it is a basilisk. So how did George know the moster had fangs? This may simply be an assumption based off of Slytherin's connection with serpents, or a flint. However, what if it goes into the same category as The Twins prediciton of the outcome of the Quidditch World Cup, or how they discovered the words for the marauders map. Or Ron's jokes that prove to be truth. It may be nothing but coincidence, but there seem to be a lot a things stacking up in favor of a "There's somethng odd about those Wealeys", theory. And just for the record I dont mean odd in an evil way. I think that everyone in the Weasley clan is true blue with the exception of Percy the Prefect. truthbeauty1 From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 3 20:24:13 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:24:13 -0000 Subject: Re DADA Prof (was Multiple post) In-Reply-To: <20051003192534.81425.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141097 > Mira: > If by 'brings out' you understand 'brings to light', > or rather 'I will have to write about it' then yes, > but otherwise the DADA job did not bring out the worst > in those who held it, only brought that worst to our > eyes. Lockhart was a criminal infatuated with himself > before he came to Hogwarts, Umbridge was horrible when > she worked for the Ministry too (as Remus could tell > us). The DADA job did not have to change Snape's > personality only because it was cursed. > Potioncat: Here is Carol's famous post that started it all. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961 To give you my take on it: The DADA curse uses the teacher's own weakness(?), fault(?) to cause a downfall of sorts which causes the teacher to leave Hogwarts...some in worse condition than others. From feenyjam at msu.edu Mon Oct 3 20:24:16 2005 From: feenyjam at msu.edu (greenfirespike) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:24:16 -0000 Subject: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141098 > bboyminn said: > > I think Ginger (separate post) has hit on the key - INTENT. > > I think one of the reasons Side-Along Apparation (SAA) is used so > rarely is because it is relatively dangerous. If you try to apparate > with at toddler, and at the moment of disapparation, the toddle sees > his favorite toy across the room and decides he wants it, you now have > conflicting intent. The toddler wants to be across the room and the > mother want to be a her intended destination. I fear that can cause > problems. > > Note in GoF, in the beginning, in Voldemort's conversation with > Wormtail, I think the Dark Lord is implying the possibility of > kidnapping Harry by using SAA. So, it certainly can be done, but > again, if Harry is able to marshall a counter-intent, the SAA kidnap > would fail. > > True, in their defense guidelines the Ministry does recommend SAA, but > I think they intend it to be used, not as a matter of course, but as > an emergency effort. If the choices are risk the consequences of SAA > or be killed by DEs, suddenly the risk of SAA doesn't seem so bad. But > I don't think the Ministry is recommending the use of SAA as a routine > thing. > > As a further note; I don't think Harry and Dumbledore using SAA was > exactly within the standard rules of apparation. I think Dumbledore > was playing by his own rules, though I doubt that given successful > completion of SAA, he would have been in much trouble. Of course, > returning from the Cave when Harry apparates and brings Dumbledore > along, that was certainly against the standard rules, but I think the > situation was a sufficient emergency that again it would be forgiven. > > Just a few thoughts. > > Steve/bboyminn The most important aspect of the Trio learning apparation is that it now allows them to travel large distances within seconds. No more looking for Buckbeak or floo powder... But it almost begs the question...who don't older students just apparate to the gates of Hogwarts to start the term? Greenfirespike From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 3 20:51:46 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:51:46 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <20051003192320.51833.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mira wrote: > > --- esmith222002 wrote: > > > Hmmm! I'm very interested in this. How could Snape > > have provided the > > information that led to the murder of Sirius Black. > > As I remember it, > > Kreacher sent Harry to the MOM whilst Sirius was > > elsewhere in the > > castle. Snape then provided the information to the > > Order that led to > > their arrival at MOM to assist Harry (if we believe > > DD). > > By telling Voldemort about the deep love bond between > Harry and Sirius. Which Voldemort would have known > anyway, if we believe Dumbledore when he says that the > reason why he did not speak to Harry at all, not even > look at him, was that he did not want Voldemort to > realize the connection between them. Sirius did not > take such precautions, so Voldemort would have known > anyway how much love there was between him and Harry. > So the jury seems still out on how much this point > incriminates Snape. > > Mira But it is just as possible that Peter Pettigrew told LV about Sirius & Harry. After all, he was the one that actually viewed the scene in the Shrieking Shack - Snape was out cold. It could have been Snape, or it could have been Peter. Don't forget that Peter is also a spy. He has a part to play in all of this. And I think he is firmly planted as a DE. I cannot say the same about Snape(in fact, I think he is DDM!Snape) It could also be Lupin, if you believe in the ESE!Lupin(which I don't). Lupin certainly knows of the love between Sirius & Harry. colebiancardi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 20:53:52 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:53:52 -0000 Subject: Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141100 Carol earlier: > >BTW, someone in another thread expressed the idea that expelling a student necessarily results in having the student's wand broken. Do we know that for a fact? > > PJ responded: > We have two examples in canon that point that way, yes. First (and the only example we have of a student actually expelled) is Hagrid. He was expelled and his wand was broken. Then in OOtP the first letter Harry gets from the MoM states that he's been expelled from Hogwarts for breaking the decree of underage sorcery and that ministry representatives would be calling at his place of residence shortly to destroy his wand (Pgs 21-22 Scholastic). > > It appears that any crime worthy of expulsion is also worthy of wand breaking. I can understand this as you wouldn't want a untrained wizard loose in the country with a wand! Some of the trained ones are scary enough. :-) Carol responds: Yes, but I've already cited both of these examples in the post you snipped, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141028 Hagrid's wand is broken not because he's expelled but because he is thought to have committed a crime (releasing the monster that killed Moaning Myrtle). And the rules have been changed for Harry's intended expulsion--ordinarily, he would not have been tried before the Wizengamot for underage magic or performing magic in front of a Muggle. He, too, is accused of a crime, not breaking a school rule. Ordinarily, expulsion and criminal trials are two separate things. A criminal like Bellatrix Lestrange will have her wand broken before she's sent to Azkaban. Sirius Black's wand was presumably destroyed, too. He certainly doesn't have it when he excapes from Azkaban. But I'm not talking about child "criminals" like teen!Hagrid and Harry). I'm talking about expulsion for violating school rules. If, for example, Ron and Harry had been expelled for arriving at Hogwarts in the flying Ford Anglia, would their wands have been taken away and broken? (r maybe that's not a good example, since they were also breaking wizarding law. At one point in CoS, Hagrid threatens Draco Malfoy with expulsion is he refuses to take his detention. I don't think we have any evidence that his wand would have been broken in that instance. (Using the Imperius Curse and attempting murder is another matter. He'll receive a lot worse than expulsion if he's caught.) In any case, to return to your original point--that Snape seems to want Harry wandering around the WW wandless. If so, it's odd that he's tried so often to *prevent* Harry from breaking the rules (e.g., going to Hogsmeade without permission) and that he has twice had good reason to expel him: When HRH knocked him against the cave wall with an Expelliarmus, he (mis)informed Fudge that they were confunded and when Harry performed Sectumsempra on Draco, he gave him a series of detentions rather than expelling him. In all other instances, he knew full well that the expulsion of a Gryffindor was not within his authority. Carol, finding it a bit odd that the examples she rebutted were snipped and then re-cited as new evidence From anurim at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 19:20:37 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Good writer (was: Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051003192037.51493.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141101 --- lupinlore wrote: > I grant > that JKR is not as > good a writer as I once believed and hoped, Why did you reach this conclusion, Lupinlore? I am interested because, hard as I tried, I had exactly the same impression all through HBP, but I would not be able to put the finger on what was causing it. Can you? Mira From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 21:51:04 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:51:04 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape!/Power of forgiveness /OFH, ESE, DD!M Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141102 Lupinlore: > I agree that this would be hard to pull off with ESE!Snape, however > I don't really see why such a plotline would necessarily require a > DDM!Snape or even make such a thing particularly likely. In fact, I > would say that it makes OFH!Snape much more likely. > > Now the reason for that is this: In order for the power of > forgiveness to have its true and most powerful impact, it has to > have a transformative effect on BOTH parties. But taken in a more restrictive sense, that it > would probably be good for Harry to not give in to hatred of Snape > or anyone else, I have no argument with it. > > But what about the benefits of forgiveness for SNAPE? One very > severe problem I have with both DDM and ESE theories of Snape is > that both make him into a more or less static character who cannot > grown and change, or fall and change, through the course of the > series. He is either ESE and that's it or he's DDM and that's it -- > he is what he is and everything he does flows from that essential, > unchanging facet of his nature. In effect, he becomes a mere prop. Alla: I agree with you in a sense that I would like to see the effect of forgiveness to be shown for both of them, if this is indeed the story to be told, BUT I think it shows again that terms we use for different types of Snapes we talk about are quite loose. For example - who says that ESE!Snape cannot eventually realise the power of forgiveness, even if he was primarily on evil side so far. OFH!Snape could be sort of Conflicted!Snape who really wants Voldemort to be gone, not because he loves Light side so much, but simply because he thinks that he (Snape) will be much happier, safer, whatever, when Voldemort is gone OR OFH!Snape could be the one who thinks that it would be better that Voldemort should prevail, because Voldemort could give him what Snape ultimately desires - power, prestige, recognition, etc. ( This is of course my opinion that this is what Snape desires). Also, DD!M Snape could be the one who sincerely thought that he (Snape) had no other choice but to kill Dumbledore, because otherwise he (Snape) will not be able to help good guys later, BUT at the same time deepd down inside what this Snape really wanted first and foremost was to survive the consequences of his stupidity on the Tower ( as I said before - this version of DD!Snape, who WILL help good guys , but who was incredibly stupid and who did commit the act of moral cowardice on the Tower does appeal to me). Also DD!Man Snape could be the one who was just following through with Dumbledore's plan to get himself (DD) killed on the Tower in order to be able to continue his spying activities and helping Harry. SO, what was my point? Oh, yes. I absolutely agree that in order for the story of forgiveness to work we need Snape to be influenced by it too, to be changed by Harry's forgiveness, just as Harry will be changed by the fact that he was able to forgive Snape, who hurt him so badly so many times. I am just not sure what kind of Snape that will give us. OFH!, ESE!, or DD!M. The only thing I know is that the killing on the Tower should for that purpose if not the malicious killing, then at the very least the act of moral cowardice by Snape, IMO. Lupinlore: > I am not at all convinced that the power of love will necessarily > turn out to be the power of forgiveness, or if it does that it will > necessarily be the Harry/Snape dynamic that will come into play. > There are plenty of other candidates for something like that, > including Draco, Wormtail, and yes, even Voldemort himself. Alla: I think Wormtail IS a very good candidate, personally, especially with JKR's insistence that his lifedebt to Harry wil come into play. JMO< Alla. From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 21:53:04 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:53:04 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141103 Saraquel: Who loved Juli's original post and saw in it more fuel for the forgiveness argument which she hammers away at as well! >>Ceridwen wrote: JKR is setting us up to see the Power of Love. Harry will have to be more like Lily, in order to grow up like James. Lily didn't seem, at least in the Pensieve scene, to have much animosity toward Snape. And it was her Power of Love that protected Harry from death, from the DiaryHorcrux, from all the things which could have happened to him at Privet Drive but didn't. He'll have to stop trying to be just like James, who had to consciously change his behaviors, and try to be like Lily, who apparently *didn't hate*. >>Lupinlore: I am not at all convinced that the power of love will necessarily turn out to be the power of forgiveness, or if it does that it will necessarily be the Harry/Snape dynamic that will come into play. Saraquel: Harry definitely hates and Lily didn't, it would appear, by nature. It will need a BIG BANG moment for Harry to expunge hatred. Sorry lost the post where someone said that if Harry doesn't expunge it, then LV will use it against him. I've been pondering Godric's Hollow a lot lately, and have been toying with the thought for a while, that what made Lily's sacrifice unique, was that as she stepped in front of Harry, her motive was not only to protect Harry, but in some way, it was in the spirit of forgiving Voldemort. Hence, making a unique connection between forgiveness and the awesome aspect of the power of love. The uniqueness would then be, not just that she sacrificed her life for Harry, which as we've argued, had surely happened before and did not bounce an AK, but that it contained an element of forgiveness. I do find this a bit OTT myself, so if you're either needing a bucket at this moment or your jaw has just dropped open, I can quite understand. But as Alla points out: No, Snape who helped made Harry an orphan, Snape who killed Harry's mentor in front of Harry's eyes is REALLY hard to forgive and if Harry manages to do so, I think he can truly call himself a hero. We know that Lily really is a Heroine, with a capital H, and that is why Harry survived. So what is the most difficult-to-believe thing that could have happened to make into that? Forgiveness of Voldemort. At the risk of repeating myself, yet again, I think Harry will put his own memory of GH into the pensieve and go back into it. (Remember JKR has said that the magic of the pensieve, is that it recreates a total memory for you, not just the memory you have of the incident.) He will see, in his mother's death, what is necessary to employ the power of love. Harry may know that he has this special weapon/power, but to date, he has no idea of what it actually `looks' like. He has no concept of what it is in reality ? hence his dismissiveness of it in the Horcrux chapter. Neither dies he have any idea about how he could use it. So he has a weapon which he doesn't know how to work ? hmm ? hang on a minute Voldemort, just stay there whilst I figure something out! Harry has to learn to reach the power inside him, and exactly what it is that will trigger it. IMO, he needs to see his own mother's death to understand that. Now that is what I call a BIG BANG thing ? a transforming experience. Lupinlore wrote: And if the forgiveness is one-sided, well, Harry becomes a kind of saint- like figure, if not a Christ figure forgiving the world that crucified him. Such is the foundation of a silly and insipid and preachy saga that will make for very good kindling. Saraquel: Yes Lupinlore, I've been struggling with that as well. But I think that Lily, to date, is the Christ-like figure. I posted something on that ages ago, that her death parallels Christ's death on the cross, which I came up with based on JKR's statements about her faith, and the fact that at the end of the series, no-one would be in doubt about what her faith was. Not long ago, I posted about the nature of forgiveness (message 140680), which was to say that it was not a gooey thing, but rather, a relinquishing of blame, setting the blamed person "free" to make their own decisions. In the Lily/Voldemort scenario that I am proposing, Lily forgives Voldemort, but Voldemort does not forgive himself (i.e. he does not take the opportunity to change), and continues with his action to kill Harry and this is why it blows up in his face ? or rather blows up his face. Hence, perhaps the mechanism for the power of love to work, is for Harry to relinquish blame and therefore hatred. I'm running out of time here, so will have to move on to some thoughts I've been having about GH. In PoA, Snape says something along the lines of James dying because he was too arrogant to believe that Sirius was a spy. (Sorry no time to hunt for the canon.) Now this implies to me that Snape tried to warn James that LV was coming to get him. This would work because it is quite possible that Snape found out from LV that LV knew where the Potters were and that he was going to get them, without knowing that it was Pettigrew that was the informant. As far a Snape knows, I is Sirius who is their SK. (This theory does need me to make this assumption) Ideally, I would like Snape to have met with James to warn him, but I can't get round the secret keeper problem, so how about Snape sends his patronus or an owl, with a message along the lines of ? Sirius is a spy, LV has found out where you are and is coming to get you. Get out now! But James knows that the secret keeper is Pettigrew ? doesn't trust Snape and thinks that it's a trap to get them to leave GH, so they stay where they are. I've got to go now, so if no-one takes this up, I'll come back to it later, along with other thoughts on this thread! Saraquel From meltowne at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 22:00:13 2005 From: meltowne at yahoo.com (meltowne) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:00:13 -0000 Subject: Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141104 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" wrote: > It appears that any crime worthy of expulsion is also worthy of wand > breaking. I can understand this as you wouldn't want a untrained wizard > loose in the country with a wand! Some of the trained ones are scary > enough. :-) PJ,I think you might have it backwards - any CRIME worthy of having your wand snapped is alsp grounds for expulsion. Hogwarts is not the only school, so expulsion in some cases could mean a transfer to Durmstrang. As for the thought of untrained wizrds, we know some wandless magic is possible (and is in fact a sign of wizrding ability). What do you suppose happens to muggle-born wizards whose families choose NOT to send them to Hogwarts? If you could block their use of magic permanently, why couldn't you do the same for a wayward wizard? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 22:12:07 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:12:07 -0000 Subject: Timing of Snape's Turning (was:Re: Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141105 > >>Marianne: > > The idea that Snape would have no regrets about nameless people he > has put in danger, but suddenly change sides in a war once his > nemesis was killed doesn't click with me. > Betsy Hp: It *shouldn't* click with you. Because that's not how we've been told it happened. Snape changed sides, per Dumbledore, *before* the attack on the Potters that left James and Lily dead and Voldemort a homeless soul-bit. It's *Harry* who mis-interperts Dumbledore's words (ignoring what he'd learned in GoF) to conclude that Snape changed sides *after* his parents' death. But either Harry is wrong or Dumbledore told a bald-faced lie to the MoM. Betsy Hp Given the history > between > James and Snape, I find it hard to swallow that, in the midst of > this horrific, years-long war, when all sorts of people were dying > and disappearing, Snape would suddenly find himself in a fit of > remorse over the death of his long-time enemy. > > Marianne From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Mon Oct 3 17:40:55 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:40:55 -0000 Subject: Snape being punished by Fake!Moody . WAS: Bullying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141106 unlikelyauthor: This is my first post on this site so fingers crossed that I don't foul up too badly. (Elsewhere I perpetrate fanfic under the name 'unlikely2'). Alla: > But as I said upthread - I will take what I can get. Whoever makes > Snape suffer even for a short while , I am perfectly fine with it. > (I don't have to say there that I don't advocate an eye for an eye > in RL, etc. You know that, right? :-) But this is a beauty of > fiction. I can imagine that bad guy ( IMO of course) will get his > dues in most unpleasant way, because nobody will get hurt :-)) > > I think I would even be happy if Voldemort makes Snape to suffer > in book 7 IF that would not be some kind of gruesome, violent > punishment ( cruciatus, death, etc.), but some painful blow to > Snape's pride. AND I still want Voldemort to die most slow and > painful death. :-) unlikelyauthor: Ok, I get the smiley, but I am someone who tends to regard literature in the way of though experiments for what is and is not acceptable behaviour. While you say nobody will get hurt, I'm not so sure. While literature and real life are not the same, there is surely some element of crossover. I will accept that fantasy violence can be very funny, butI've to confess that I find the Weasley twins' behaviour (for example) monstrous. I'm hard put to explain where the 'balk factor' lies but perhaps it's the more that we are invited to regard characters as 'real', the less acceptable it is to 'want' to hurt them. Or is that catharsis? Perhaps I should get back to attempting recalibration of the degree of slippage on the reality interface? unlikelyauthor (who thinks there must have been a better way than shoving the old witch into the oven being one herself). From jajaredor at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 18:53:47 2005 From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (Jaja Redor) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051003185347.52942.qmail@web61213.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141107 Ginger gropes for an answer: > The times we have seen SAA (as I'm calling it) either > Harry or DD has asked the one being transported if they are ready, > or something of that nature. I would think that if Harry was > grabbed by someone with whom he really didn't want to go, that > he'd just mentally refuse and either not dissappear at all or be > splinched. > > I'm guessing that's why the MoM pamphlets tell parents to review > and practice SAA with the family. My guess would be that any > child who is old enough to have a preference needs to understand > that they must want to go with Mummy or Daddy, or at least not > fight it. This could get tricky with toddlers. Jaja: That is a very convincing answer. I just wondered why JKR never used it before, why just now? I mean we could've seen the Weasleys doing it. I guess, they've never done it either because it they have, Ron could've mentioned it to Harry even in passing. He could've describe it. I guess, I've just never seen it coming. Jaja who still wonders about SAA and thinks it's still risky doing it "Just because the ship has sailed doesn't mean it has sunk already" - Jade From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 3 22:51:11 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:51:11 -0000 Subject: Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > In any case, to return to your original point--that Snape seems to > want Harry wandering around the WW wandless. If so, it's odd that he's > tried so often to *prevent* Harry from breaking the rules (e.g., going > to Hogsmeade without permission) and that he has twice had good reason > to expel him: When HRH knocked him against the cave wall with an > Expelliarmus, he (mis)informed Fudge that they were confunded Geoff; Just for clarity, is the incident to which you are actually referring when /Harry/ used an Expelliarmus charm on Snape in the /Shrieking Shack/ in COS? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 23:16:43 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:16:43 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141109 > >>Valky: > > So my assessment of James generally a nice guy, who deliberately > and openly sets himself against things that he thinks are wrong > and evil. Betsy Hp: So, do you think *all* of those students James and Sirius hexed throughout their time at Hogwarts were somehow wrong or evil? Because I got the impression that James was more showing off than taking some sort of "stand against injustice" or something. > >>Valky: > His groups of best friends - A Werewolf, a Blood Traitor, and a > virtual Squib. Betsy Hp: Hmmm.... Again, I think you're giving James a bit too much credit here. James didn't rush out to befriend a werewolf. Lupin was his friend and then James *discovered* he was a werewolf. There's a difference there. Yes, it was good of James (and telling, I think) that he *maintained* his friendship with Lupin, but it doesn't paint a picture of James being out for the little guy, IMO. And with Sirius, sure he chose to go against family tradition and become a Gryffindor, but that didn't automatically make him a blood traitor. Sirius remained a Black until he was sixteen, IIRC. So again, James wasn't choosing to befriend an oppressed outsider. As to Peter, I'm going to agree with colebiancardi here. Nothing in canon points to Peter being so magically challenged as to be considered a "virtual squib". *Harry* pictures Peter as Neville, but that's an assumption on his part. (I think Collin Creevey would have made a better mirror, though not a perfect one. He has the worshipfulness down anyway.) For me, the most disturbing part of the pensieve memory was how *comfortable* James was with Peter's fawning. It seemed that Peter worked to be James's friend, not the other way around. So again, I don't see a pattern of choosing the "outsiders". > >>Valky: > > Before the prank James turned his defiance of all things he hated, > all things that were wrong in his mind, on an easy target. Snape. > Then confronted with the choice to let Snape face Lupin alone and > unprepared, he saw another wrong, but this time his defiance of it > needed to be turned upon his best friend Sirius. A Hard choice, and > James, the same essential person, made the choice of what was right > over what was easy and defied his best friend to save Snape. Betsy Hp: I do agree that the Prank was James's moment of defining choice. His dislike of Snape did not translate into James allowing his friend to become a murderer. But I *also* think that at this point James stepped onto a different path than the one he'd been heading down. That's what made the choice "hard", IMO. Because James *does* go against his friend (in the short term anyway). The easiest thing to do would have been to do nothing. It's to James's credit that he took action. > >>Valky: > I also think that James and Sirius thought they had the measure of > what was good for Snape and the school in general when they were > bullying Snape, but they were wrong... > Betsy Hp: I have a hard time reconciling this with the memory. Snape wasn't doing anything wrong. He wasn't picking on a poor big-eyed first year. He wasn't torturing puppies. He was studying for his OWL. And Sirius was bored. James decided that as a good friend he'd entertain Sirius by picking on the outsider, the weird kid with bad social skills and a funky homelife. It's very hard for me to see "out for social justice"!James in this memory. Even *James* can't point him out. "Because he exists" doesn't quite cut it as a rallying cry for me. > >>Valky: > > ...Lily's chewing out of James in the Pensieve should be (and > probably was) a lesson to James. > Betsy Hp: Again, I don't see James "learning a lesson" here. Actually, once Lily stormed off (to get a professor, maybe?) James turns his attack *up* a notch. He threatens to strip Snape in front of a mixed group. Whether it happens or not, James seemed pretty serious in his intent. No, I think James's "lesson" comes when he realizes his best friend is about to commit murder. It's certainly a good thing that James was unwilling to take his vendetta with Snape that far, but I do think it's important to recognize how seriously James had it in for Snape beforehand. > >>Valky: > > Snapes instincts are, I think, that he needs order and rationality, > and he needs to feel he has a secure handle on his greater > environment, he is very in need of control. He chooses what is > easy, to express those instincts, when he spies on the Marauders, > trying to take control of what happens in their lives. > Betsy Hp: I agree with you somewhat here. I'm not sure I'd label spying on the Marauders as "easy", though. I figure Snape generally enjoyed Hogwarts except for the Marauders and, in an attempt to take control of the situation, decided to find the Marauders in some sort of wrong-doing and get them expelled, thereby eliminating the problem. Going up against a gang that had the Map and an invisibility cloak in its arsenal must have been frustrating, however. That might be part of the reason Snape took the "easy" route and decided to maintain contact with his "Slytherin gang" and join the Death Eaters. (Though I do think it's a mistake to lean too heavily on the "James abused Snape into joining the Death Eaters" theory. I'm sure there were other factors, and I'm leery of overselling James's role in Snape's decision.) Betsy Hp From smilingator81 at aol.com Mon Oct 3 23:17:35 2005 From: smilingator81 at aol.com (smilingator4915) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:17:35 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > I was reading C.O.S. the other day and I came across something that > I found to be odd. how did George know the moster had fangs? This may > simply be an assumption based off of Slytherin's connection with > serpents, or a flint. However, what if it goes into the same category > as The Twins prediciton of the outcome of the Quidditch World Cup, or > how they discovered the words for the marauders map. Or Ron's jokes > that prove to be truth. smilingator: This is one of those things that I hope JKR explains in the seventh book. I too have noticed how the twins seem to know things before they happen. We know there were time turners that allowed people to travel into the past, but what if there are devices to allow people to travel into the future. Who knows what else Fred and George knicked from Filch's office. The twins Quidditch incident was quite a subplot in Goblet of Fire. I wonder how much of this issue will get movie time. I think that may be a clue as to the importance of their "ability" to "guess" how things will occur. From moosiemlo at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 22:47:33 2005 From: moosiemlo at yahoo.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why Give Snape DADA In-Reply-To: <1127162558.5221.83468.m33@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20051003224733.18664.qmail@web30013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141111 >potioncat: > I don't think Snape was given DADA because DD needed to bring > Slughorn back. I think the time was right for Snape to be placed in > DADA and as DD also had need of Slughorn, he recruited him. Ironic > isn't it, Slughorn's retirement made room for Snape and Snape's > transfer made room for Slughorn. Lynda: Bringing Slughorn back to teach potions and all that aside, I've wondered since my first reading of HBP (and I think that I will continue to do so until I've completed my reading of the next book) if Snape wasn't given the DADA position in this book so that he could/would leave Hogwarts. If there is a curse on that position which was put in place by Voldie, then, if his presence was needed at Hogwarts Dumbledore would, of course not give Snape the position, but when the climate changed, so to speak, and it became necessary for Snape to move on either at Dumbledore's behest or to return to Voldie full time then Dumbledore gave him the position, knowing full well that he would be leaving the school at the end of the term. Lynda DeColores --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erikog at one.net Mon Oct 3 23:12:42 2005 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:12:42 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! (Forgiveness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141112 > Lupinlore wrote: > And if > the forgiveness is one-sided, well, Harry becomes a kind of saint- > like figure, if not a Christ figure forgiving the world that > crucified him. Such is the foundation of a silly and insipid and > preachy saga that will make for very good kindling. > > Saraquel: > Yes Lupinlore, I've been struggling with that as well. But I think > that Lily, to date, is the Christ-like figure. I posted something > on that ages ago, that her death parallels Christ's death on the > cross, which I came up with based on JKR's statements about her > faith, and the fact that at the end of the series, no-one would be > in doubt about what her faith was. I disagree with the idea that Harry has to be a Christ-like figure to forgive Snape. To me, at the point that Harry is at the start of HBP, to begin the forgiveness process requires empathy; it means you have to acknowledge you yourself are imperfect, that you can say to yourself, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." That kind of self-knowledge isn't super-human or really divine, to me. It's true maturity. (Sirius, one notes, is both a posterboy for immaturity in adulthood and someone who, according to JKR, failed terribly-- to see that some good exists in Snape. Not that Snape's perfect, but that he isn't all evil, either. Like Harry, Sirius was stuck in black/white mode.) I believe Harry's being set up, through HBP, to develop the kind of self-awareness/empathy that will move him beyond Sirius' model (or TeenSnape, for that matter. Dumbledore lets him view Voldie's history, I would argue, as a hint that Harry has to truly *understand* Voldiein order to defeat him. (And I suspect Harry's about to go through a mental breakthrough. re: Draco. They have three major meetings in this book: Draco beats up Harry; Harry lashes back (this is a *very* vivid lesson for Harry in that hatred has repercussions, whether you will it or not); and lastly, Harry sees Draco--supposedly unspeakably evil Draco-- hesitate to do the utmost evil. Even with his family and his life on the line!) Whether all of this requires a major change on Snape's part-- well, I don't see Snape asking Harry over to watch Quidditch on TV together! But I suspect Snape's major challenge is to move beyond being Dumbledore's Man (doing good because AD wants him to do this-or-that) to demonstrate his belief in Harry's value as a human being. (If this sounds like I think Snape is going to take an AK for Harry, well, I wouldn't be surprised. He'd probably prefer that to giving HP a loving hug!) I think Snape already took a giant step forward in terms of *his* maturation process by trying to save the life of a man he thought had attempted to kill *him*. He is anything but gracious about it, and he is associated with the reasons James' life was at risk to begin with, but the facts are that Snape risked his own life in order to try to save a man he'd hated/thought evil for most of their shaired boyhood. That's not forgiveness, but it *is* a statement of major character growth on his part. Krista From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 4 00:24:41 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:24:41 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141113 Lupinlore: I agree that this would be hard to pull off with ESE!Snape, however I don't really see why such a plotline would necessarily require a DDM!Snape or even make such a thing particularly likely. In fact, I would say that it makes OFH!Snape much more likely. Valky: I agree, and IMO all the better theories of Snapes final character arc do lend to OFH!Snape, more than any other type. Lupinlore: in general reads all sorts of unwarrented themes from one saga into the other, as well as bringing up that hackneyed chestnut the Hero's Journey. Valky: S'cuse me, Lupinlore, had to comment on this one. ;D 'hackneyed chestnut' ? You clearly have a strong opinion on that. I personally don't find all the references to the Heroes journey, trite, and particularly not that which can be read from Julie's post IMO. I do personally agree with bringing traditions of the heroes journey into the speculation here. But I think, however, that we aren't exploring it fully enough, despite our repeated references to it. There are other traditions in a heroes journey beyond the loss of the mentor and the battle within, and it does become overused when only those two angles are explored, so if that's your meaning, then I agree with you. :D Lupinlore: A Snape who, for instance, allowed himself to become entangled in his own webs in Chapter 2 of HBP, and who fell from goodness because of that and his ultimate murder of Dumbledore, is someone who could experience the redemptive power of forgiveness. A DDM!Snape who is utterly convinced that he has been in the right all along and who is just concerned in making the stupid Potter boy see facts is NOT a figure of redemption. Valky: I agree, however, I don't for an instant think that either side will be favoured so much in book seven. Pardon me for saying, but I think that those who hope for Snape to be loaded good or loaded evil in a final revelation are in for a dissappointment. Nowhere in this whole saga have I ever seen Snapes plate piled higher on one side than the other, and I don't think JKR is going to change tack on that now. It is for this reason that I am sure Snape will figure strongly for redemption. Wormtail has been weighing in evil evil insidiously evil with almost no counterbalance whatsoever, I do see him having a redemption, of sorts, but I don't see how it won't necessarily be something that could end up construed as Pettigrew acting in his own best interests again. He has so few redemptive qualities, that I think his best chance is the fact that he's a turncoat, with maybe a vague soft spot and fondness for his childhood larks. IOW when he does repay his debt he'll be most likely taken in by Harry's likeness to young James in reminiscence of better days, *and* he will see that Harry is getting close to a victory over Voldemort which he can help with. It's not really a huge redemption in my eyes. Snape OTOH, well as I said, he'll be piled to the skies on both sides of the fence, even so much as he is proved innocent on some counts he will be guilty guilty guilty on others. There will be enough to warrant he needs forgiveness, and some reason for him to deserve it. But then just a hint in the middle, that he gets a little more forgiveness than most people would give for what he has done. Lupinlore: That figure would only be a prop for an insipid storyline about cleansing oneself of hatred despite the wrongs done to you -- did I say that would be insipid? Valky: LOL theres that strong language again. To be honest with you, you have the right of that IMO. I find the whole notion of perfect Snape entirely misread by stupid Potter, awfully insipid. I'll go with the misreading element, I'll even go with the not half bad Snape, but the idea that a character like Snape could be the exception to those who are humbled by this great power of Love in Harry, utterly insipid, yeah, that is totally the right word. Even Dumbledore, who hardly puts a foot wrong, and probably has all the love in the world within him, won't stand in stead of it Lupinlore: If the fullness of the power of forgiveness is to be realized, then SNAPE as well as Harry must experience it as an important and transformative moment. And in order for that to be the case, Snape must have done something to be forgiven for -- and more to the point, something that he himself knows, if only deep inside, that he needs to be forgiven for. At this point in the story, I don't think it would be a believable dynamic for that forgiveness to be about something that happened before Harry came to Hogwarts (that reduces Snape to a static figure again) or about classroom problems (which avoids other issues). Rather it has to be for something that Snape has genuinely done wrong within the scope of the story, something that HAS separated him from the side of the good, and something for which Harry's forgiveness has deep meaning. Valky: What about something happening after Snapes supposed pre-story redemption but partially out of the scope of the story. Such as killing James or having a direct hand in overcoming him in the battle. Harry accuses Snape of killing James, and Snape does not deny it, but rather goes to pieces for being called a coward over it. The three elements of that scene can be transposed cleanly onto a two one one battle between James, Voldie and Snape, and be something Snape knows he needs forgiveness for. Plus it makes a twisted, bangy reference back to the pensieve two on one and to Dumbledores trust. Snape-lovers will hate it, I know, but I am interested in your opinion Lupinlore, in reference to what you have said above. Lupinlore: I am not at all convinced that the power of love will necessarily turn out to be the power of forgiveness, or if it does that it will necessarily be the Harry/Snape dynamic that will come into play. There are plenty of other candidates for something like that, including Draco, Wormtail, and yes, even Voldemort himself. And if the forgiveness is one-sided, well, Harry becomes a kind of saint- like figure, if not a Christ figure forgiving the world that crucified him. Such is the foundation of a silly and insipid and preachy saga that will make for very good kindling. Valky: What I postulated above seems far too strong to work for the context you have here, unless Harry really does come up christ-like in his forgiveness. But do you still think you'd burn it? That's the question on my mind. I guess because I sometimes really appreciate and enjoy your forthrightness, regardless that I don't always agree with you. Valky From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 00:52:29 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:52:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40510031752k43e11105yd9a153f75b1e7aec@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141114 On 9/30/05, pippin_999 wrote: > > Nora: > Particularly as the essence of the Dark Arts is domination... > > > Pippin: > Where did that come from? I didn't think there was any consensus > on what the essence of the Dark Arts is, either in the books or > outside them -- the term seems to be applied to any magic of > which the speaker does not approve. > > Hermione worries about any spell that doesn't have ministry > say-so, Umbridge wants to make the ministry's approved spell > list even narrower, and Harry only decided the Prince's book > was full of dark magic after he found out who wrote it. > > Sectum sempra is undoubtedly dangerous, but is it more > dangerous than "Reducto!" would be if you used it on an enemy? Kemper now: Snape suggests Sectumserpra is Dark Magic: "Who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic?" Sure, Reducto used on someone (if it works on living beings) could be could be used for Dark purpose, but it is not Dark Magic. Dark Magic is about the intent of the Magic being created. Sectumserpra (cut always?) wasn't created to shred paper, it was created with the intention of hurting/maiming another human being, and that is what makes it Dark. Is there any consensus? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 4 01:39:27 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:39:27 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141115 >>>Valky: > > > > So my assessment of James generally a nice guy, who deliberately > > and openly sets himself against things that he thinks are wrong > > and evil. > > Betsy Hp: > So, do you think *all* of those students James and Sirius hexed > throughout their time at Hogwarts were somehow wrong or evil? > Because I got the impression that James was more showing off than > taking some sort of "stand against injustice" or something. Valky: No and Yes, I certainly don't think all of the students that got the wrong end of this pairs wands were evil and wrong. But I do think the comparison between the F/G and the J/S pair is telling in regard to the kind of situations generally presiding when J/S did get mean. I might have overgeneralised my veiw a bit in the above post and I am sure you've heard this from me before, what I mean to say is that I think J/S, especially James, were really reputation conscious, and tried to forge themselves a reputation that reflected them as champions of their set of principles. This is in line with Snapes accusations of strutting, and Lily's jab about ruffling hair to look like he is fresh of his broomstick. Lily would really have gotten the best of James in that scene by saying that, by pointing out that she didn't care one whoot about his reputation, equally by asking "what has he ever done to you?" She would be besting him in his own territory. She knows what James is up to, she knows who he thinks he is, but she ultimately disagrees. So what I am saying here is that the general hexing in the hallways, most likely wouldn't have been imposed on someone minding their own business (except for Snape whom they don't believe ever minds his own business). In Lily's spat she accuses James of doing it because those people are 'annoying him', James really doesn't have a rebuttal because it has come to that with his antics and he knows it. He'd been telling himself that they were out of line and that people were cheering him on for putting them right, but in reality, he's been fooling himself for too long now swept up in his own cult status. OTOH, he does really believe in championing good principles, and so does Sirius, that's their inner self, and it doesn't change IMO, they just misrepresent it out hormone driven teenage self righteousness, I think. > > > >>Valky: > > His groups of best friends - A Werewolf, a Blood Traitor, and a > > virtual Squib. > > Betsy Hp: > Hmmm.... Again, I think you're giving James a bit too much credit > here. Valky: I utterly disagree. Betsy: > James didn't rush out to befriend a werewolf. Lupin was his > friend and then James *discovered* he was a werewolf. There's a > difference there. Yes, it was good of James (and telling, I think) > that he *maintained* his friendship with Lupin, but it doesn't paint > a picture of James being out for the little guy, IMO. Valky: Yes, but Lupin *was* the little guy, *before* James found out he was a werewolf. He'd been isolated all his life, was wary, afraid and very alone when he came to Hogwarts, this was because he was a werewolf, but it was also debilitating in itself. Lupin *needed* a generous soul to befriend him, this is one reason why he continued to feel indebtted to James and Sirius well into his adult years. I doubt his haggard, shabby, mutilated appearances would have been very endearing to the general population, but J/S were able to look beyond them and make a friend, and then consummate that friendship with their refusal to abandon him when things got worse. The best part is that J/S do this before they get overadoring of themselves for it, it is genuinely in them to disregard the protocol of snobbery, like Harry does when he first meets Ron, they judge the right sort for themselves. > Betsy: > And with Sirius, sure he chose to go against family tradition and > become a Gryffindor, but that didn't automatically make him a blood > traitor. Sirius remained a Black until he was sixteen, IIRC. So > again, James wasn't choosing to befriend an oppressed outsider. Valky: Hmm, I think that is a matter for debate. As far as I can see, Sirius was oppressed by his parents while he lived with them. And he was an outsider even though he was within their walls. He says he got tired of it at sixteen and left, this doesn't exactly support reading it as Sirius had it good before then, does it? He also says he was never happy in that home, being there in OOtP brought to the surface some of his worst and most painful memories. And again Sirius was the one of the crew, IMO, most hellbent on avenging the oppressed and the little guy, he was the angriest of the two. Yeah I think Sirius might have been all but suicidal/homicidal before he met James, and it's to James credit that he didn't fear someone with the dark reputation of the Black family hanging over his head, huffily brooding in the corner of the Gryffindor common room, but made a true and lasting friendship with him instead. > Betsy: > As to Peter, I'm going to agree with colebiancardi here. Nothing in > canon points to Peter being so magically challenged as to be > considered a "virtual squib". Valky: In POA MacGonagall gives us the canon that refutes this statement Betsy. Nobody thought Peter was anything of a wizard. Betsy: > For me, the most disturbing part of > the pensieve memory was how *comfortable* James was with Peter's > fawning. It seemed that Peter worked to be James's friend, not the > other way around. Valky: I think this is true by around the time of the SWM scene. By then Peter has become quite accomplished I'd imagine, and he is playing James against himself. But in the initial stages of their friendship, I maintain Peter was definitely an outsider with lacklustre potential in the friends department, mostly because he ws an easy target due to his feckless wizardry, like NL. James and Sirius most likely protected him in the beginning. Betsy: > So again, I don't see a pattern of choosing > the "outsiders". Valky: ;D and again, I do. > > >>Valky: > > I also think that James and Sirius thought they had the measure of > > what was good for Snape and the school in general when they were > > bullying Snape, but they were wrong... > > > > Betsy Hp: > I have a hard time reconciling this with the memory. Snape wasn't > doing anything wrong. He wasn't picking on a poor big-eyed first > year. He wasn't torturing puppies. He was studying for his OWL. > And Sirius was bored. James decided that as a good friend he'd > entertain Sirius by picking on the outsider, the weird kid with bad > social skills and a funky homelife. Valky: Yes I agree that this reads right. But again it reads all wrong outside the pensieve so how can it be the right of the story? Inside the pensieve, Snape is all those things, but all other canon says there is much much more to this story and Snape is not all he might seem there in that scene. I cannot step outside the pensieve scene without questioning the opinion that they were picking on an outsider because of his bad social skills and funky homelife. And I wonder how anyone else can. If James was picking on Snape because of his looks and isolation, then what meaning does "Snape was neck deep in Dark Arts and James always hated the Dark Arts" have, except to argue point blank that Sirius and Lupin are a pair of liars. If Snape was really a lonely boy who minds his own business, then how on earth did he end up walking into the Shrieking Shack, if Sirius didn't hogtie him and drag him down there? Can't you see the contradiction, or do we really think Sirius is ESE? Betsy: > It's very hard for me to > see "out for social justice"!James in this memory. Even *James* > can't point him out. "Because he exists" doesn't quite cut it as a > rallying cry for me. Valky: Really, lol Thats exactly what it seems to be, to me. > > > >>Valky: > > > > ...Lily's chewing out of James in the Pensieve should be (and > > probably was) a lesson to James. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Again, I don't see James "learning a lesson" here. Actually, once > Lily stormed off (to get a professor, maybe?) James turns his attack > *up* a notch. He threatens to strip Snape in front of a mixed > group. Whether it happens or not, James seemed pretty serious in > his intent. Valky: Yes that was the kneejerk reaction to being confronted with his ugly truth. But I don't think it proves James wasn't capable of reliving it in his mind afterwards and learning from it soon enough after. Betsy: > No, I think James's "lesson" comes when he realizes his > best friend is about to commit murder. It's certainly a good thing > that James was unwilling to take his vendetta with Snape that far, > but I do think it's important to recognize how seriously James had > it in for Snape beforehand. Valky: I agree that this is most likely the biggest lesson of the two for James. However, returning to the original context of my statement about this, I don't think it would do Snape any harm to get chewed out for his horribleness, it might not be his biggest lesson, but regardless of what his intent is, just like James, he should have the truth thrown in his face for him. > > > >>Valky: > > {Snape} chooses what is > > easy, to express those instincts, when he spies on the Marauders, > > trying to take control of what happens in their lives. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I agree with you somewhat here. I'm not sure I'd label spying on > the Marauders as "easy", though. I figure Snape generally enjoyed > Hogwarts except for the Marauders and, in an attempt to take control > of the situation, decided to find the Marauders in some sort of > wrong-doing and get them expelled, thereby eliminating the problem. > Going up against a gang that had the Map and an invisibility cloak > in its arsenal must have been frustrating, however. Valky: I agree with you about that, but I meant 'easy' in the sense that its easier to express yourself with only your personal agenda and self righteousness to serve, the hard choice is to serve your sense of righteousness without getting any personal gain, or while sacrificing some personal agenda. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 01:40:43 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:40:43 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: <700201d40510031752k43e11105yd9a153f75b1e7aec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141116 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > Kemper now: > Snape suggests Sectumserpra is Dark Magic: > "Who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic?" > Sure, Reducto used on someone (if it works on living beings) could > be could be used for Dark purpose, but it is not Dark Magic. Dark > Magic is about the intent of the Magic being created. Sectumserpra > cut always?) wasn't created to shred paper, it was created with > the intention of hurting/maiming another human being, and that is > what makes it Dark. Is there any consensus? Upthread someone else asked about Obliviate, so now I think I have what could be used to make a distinction, although I'm not sure I buy it. It's the classic difference between necessary and sufficient; or another angle on the same idea is whether it has any other purpose/use. I believe you are right in saying that Sectumsempra is necessarily Dark--it has no other good uses, and it always hurts/maims another human being. Obliviate *can* be used to harm another human being, but it's not necessarily used that way. This is by no means airtight, but I think it's a criterion worth considering. -Nora wonders about the impetus to create and power such a spell... From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Oct 4 01:53:40 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:53:40 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! (Forgiveness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141117 Krista: > But I suspect Snape's major challenge is to move beyond > being Dumbledore's Man (doing good because AD wants him to do > this-or-that) houyhnhnm: I believe that the argument in the forest is connected somehow to this, as well as the pleading on the tower. Snape makes a choice for the side of Good when he saves Harry once again by getting the DEs out of Hogwarts, but, you're right, he's still being Dumbledore's Man. It's still the singer, not the song. It would be really interesting if Snape's character does evolve in book 7 and he moves beyong his personal loyalty to Dumbledore, to value goodness for its own sake. From natti_shafer at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 01:56:58 2005 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:56:58 -0000 Subject: Snape, bias, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141118 Krista wrote: This bit of the HBP has been driving me nuts. I operate from the assumption that everything JKR does, she does for a reason; none of the action in the story is just for the heck of it." Therefore, I want to know why it is that Snape fetches Harry, vs. Hagrid, from Tonks at the Hogwarts gate. (Chapter 8 of the US standard hardback; p. 155 the chapter begins.) Nathaniel here: I would disagree to some degree with your central premise. To a large degree this is just exposition, IMO. It's sort of a large reminder that Harry and Snape just do not get along. We have large moments like these in every book. Take for example Book 5 - there are many times, where, in case you forgot, we the readers are reminded that History of Magic is BORING. (If you hadn't picked that up by Book 5, I'm not sure you have been enjoying the Harry Potter series too much.) And I don't think that is really necessary to the plot of Book 5. It helps explain partially why Harry falls asleep during the examination and fails to get an O.W.L. at the end of the year. However, it really isn't central to the plot, to charactarization, nor does it introduce any new information, which I believe it really could have if Harry ever paid attention. He may have missed some important clues in that class . . . Anyway, back to my point about this being exposition, the book would not really make sense if the reader does not know the depth of Harry's hatred for Snape. None of Harry's actions that year will make sense to the reader, if he/she is not entirely convinced of Harry's motives and hatred. For myself, I'm not sure I needed it, but that's a different topic. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 02:09:37 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 02:09:37 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape!/Snape to blame for Sirius death?/Reality and fiction(LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141119 > And Alla says: > > > Well, except for the fact that Snape may be REALLY at fault for > > Sirius' death. I realise that possibility that Snape may be telling > > the truth in "Spinner's End" is not viewed as a strong one, but I > > think that it IS a possibility. > Krista: > That's not the point of this particular debate, however--we're > discussing the grounds on which Harry bases his loathing of Snape, > not Snape outside of Harry's vision. What is being argued is that > *Harry* bases his hatred of Snape *solely* on the emotional > gratification he gets from it, and he knows it. (Hence the "Harry > clung to this belief..." sentence.) Whether there are > other logical reasons for an external observer to doubt Snape and > think him complicit in Sirius' murder isn't the point. The only > accusation * Harry* throws at Snape is that he used nasty names to > goad Sirius' temper. In short, Harry wants to believe Snape guilty of > murder *just because* he made snide comments. Alla: To me it is relevant to this debate because that would show that Harry's instincts are right, even though indeed the only accusation Harry throws at Snape is the one you mentioned. I am just arguing against the idea that Harry's hatred of Snape is completely irrational, unsupported, etc. Now, don't get me wrong, I would like Harry to be able to move on past his hatred of Snape, but NOT because Snape does not deserve it, I think he deserves every ounce of hatred Harry gives him, not because of one particular incident, but by totality of circumstances, so to speak. I would like Harry to do it for himself and quite honestly I don't have a slightest doubt that he would do it at the end. If Snape did NOT give the information about Sirius to Voldemort, well, I still would not consider Harry's thinking that Snape is partially to blame to be completely irrational. Not because Snape helped to kill him in this instance of course, but because IMO JKR showed again and again how much power words have in her world, they can hurt really badly and they can even kill IMO and I think that Snape's baiting of Sirius did play the part quite well. Krista: In Harry's reflections > in that chapter, he doesn't bring up a single > logical argument to connect Snape with Sirius' murder--just that > Snape didn't like Sirius and he made nasty comments that provoked > Sirius' temper. If Harry actually had legitimate reason to accuse > Snape, that'd be one thing. But all he has, which he admits to > himself, is the *desire* to blame Snape. Alla: I believe that by instincts Harry could be more logical than he realises, but even if he does not, well, as I said above I don't think it is completely irrational - Snape's baiting ( if it was ONLY baiting) of course cannot be the direct cause of Sirius' death, but it could be the proximate cause of one. But I think that somewhere Harry does say that he blames Snape because it is easier than to blame himself ( cannot find quote), so IF Harry's subconscious IS wrong( which I am not so sure about), I think he realises it already. > > Alla: > > But as I said upthread - I will take what I can get. Whoever makes > > Snape suffer even for a short while , I am perfectly fine with it. > > (I don't have to say there that I don't advocate an eye for an eye > > in RL, etc. You know that, right? :-) But this is a beauty of > > fiction. I can imagine that bad guy ( IMO of course) will get his > > dues in most unpleasant way, because nobody will get hurt :-)) > Unlikelyauthor: > Ok, I get the smiley, but I am someone who tends to regard literature in the way of though experiments for what is and is not acceptable behaviour. While you say nobody will get hurt, I'm not so sure. While literature and real life are not the same, there is surely some element of crossover. I will accept that fantasy violence can be very funny, butI've to confess that I find the Weasley twins' behaviour (for example) monstrous. Alla: Welcome to the list! :-) I actually agree with you more than you think. :-) Let me clarify. I LOVE discussing Potterverse in connection with RL, I think that putting magic factor aside, JKR writes series which do reflect the reality in many ways. Sometimes it is an ugly reflection, sometimes very charitable one, but I think and I said it many times, I think those are books about people,who just happen to be wizards, not vice versa. I was commenting on MY attitudes about the fictional character, NOT that I find the fictional violence funny all the time, to be honest sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. Ugh, I am starting to loose my point. I guess what I am saying is that I can afford to hate fictional villains full stop, while in RL I always, always try to remember that hate is NOT a good thing and work really hard on not doing so ( not saying that I am always succesful, but I do try). And it is actually an interesting point about the more we consider the characters to be real, the less it is acceptable to hurt them. I would say yes, unless this is a punishment ( to me in any event). I think it is very relevant to the Twins actions. In RL I would find some of his actions to be hullying for sure, but Dicentra once wrote an amazing post about Toons . Here is the link, but I love the idea that Twins never hurt three dimensional characters. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43083 The post is called "Who Framed Fred and George?" it is written in the middle of fascinating discussion of "whether Twins are bullies". There are some fantastic Elkins' posts there, which argue that Twins are bullies. Highly recommended, IMO. I think that after HBP, if Twins were to hurt Draco, I would think about it completely differently, NOT because Draco became a good guy, ( to me he is SO far from being a good guy yet), but because he became more Real!Character so to speak. Am I making any sense at all? JMO of course, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 4 02:57:52 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 02:57:52 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141120 Nora wrote: > I believe you are right in saying that Sectumsempra is necessarily > Dark--it has no other good uses, and it always hurts/maims another > human being. Obliviate *can* be used to harm another human being, > but it's not necessarily used that way. > > This is by no means airtight, but I think it's a criterion worth > considering. > Potioncat: I still can not understand why no one asked JKR what defines Dark Magic! I think your idea has merit, but would that make hexes Dark Magic? The spell Hermione used on any SNEAK was pretty bad and would have no good use. It seems like Dark Magic to me, but I don't think anyone else saw it that way. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 03:13:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 03:13:47 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141121 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So, do you think *all* of those students James and Sirius hexed > > throughout their time at Hogwarts were somehow wrong or evil? > > > >>Valky: > No and Yes, I certainly don't think all of the students that got the > wrong end of this pairs wands were evil and wrong. But I do think > the comparison between the F/G and the J/S pair is telling in > regard to the kind of situations generally presiding when J/S did > get mean. Betsy Hp: Ooh, you picked a wrong analogy for me there Valky . Since I'm kind of hoping one of the twins turns out to be evil as an explination of their general creepiness they're not a really good example of doing it for the principle. (The twins generally do what's best for the twins, IMO.) Which is why *I* think the comparison made between James and Sirius and the twins is telling in an entirely different way. > >>Valky: > > OTOH, he does really believe in championing good principles, and so > does Sirius, that's their inner self, and it doesn't change IMO, > they just misrepresent it out hormone driven teenage self > righteousness, I think. Betsy Hp: Is there any canon on this? I know Lupin says (or is it Sirius) that James hated the Dark Arts (which...okay. A bit weird for an eleven year old, IMO, but has the war started or something?) but that James thinks he can tell if someone is worthy of punishment or not is a bit... well, it doesn't impress. Frankly I think it's something he needed to get over. Sirius deciding that someone was worthy of death gave James a much needed wakeup call, I think. (I don't care *how* old you are. Setting yourself up as the decider of right or wrong is, well, wrong, IMO. Even Dumbledore hesitates.) > >>Betsy: > > James didn't rush out to befriend a werewolf. Lupin was his > > friend and then James *discovered* he was a werewolf. > > > >>Valky: > Yes, but Lupin *was* the little guy, *before* James found out he > was a werewolf. He'd been isolated all his life, was wary, afraid > and very alone when he came to Hogwarts, this was because he was a > werewolf, but it was also debilitating in itself. Betsy Hp: Oh, James was a good guy I think in general. If you weren't obviously weird I think he gave people a chance. And even adult Lupin is quite good at telling people what they want to hear, so I imagine he had that gift as a child (for the reasons you point out). But I'm not sure that James noticed the incredibly strange child and decided to befriend him. > >>Valky: > > I doubt his haggard, shabby, mutilated appearances would have been > very endearing to the general population... > Betsy Hp: First, Lupin is not, and never was, mutilated. That's movie contamination. Canon Lupin is never described as having a single scar (except for his bite?). He just looks really, *really* tired. Second, we don't know that Lupin's parents were as poor as Lupin is now. *They* weren't werewolves so they may have been able to afford decent clothes for their son. (Lupin's not described as "shabby" in the pensieve memory that I could find. He looked a bit peaky, that's all.) And third, Lupin *does* get chosen as a prefect. So even if the Marauders weren't the only Gryffindor boys of their year, Lupin must have stood out, in a good way, from the rest of the boys. All of that makes it very hard for me to see Lupin as a "little guy". *Shy* I'd buy, but not oppressed. I *do* think it speaks well of James that he *remained* Lupin's friend once he found out about Lupin's "furry little problem", but merely making friends with Lupin in the first place doesn't impress me tons. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Sirius remained a Black until he was sixteen, IIRC. So > > again, James wasn't choosing to befriend an oppressed outsider. > >>Valky: > Hmm, I think that is a matter for debate. As far as I can see, > Sirius was oppressed by his parents while he lived with them. > Betsy Hp: Oh, I fully buy that Sirius and his mother went at it hammer and tongs from the moment Sirius learned to talk . And I'm sure James picked up on the fact that Sirius was *not* the favored son. (Which if James really *was* against the Dark Arts so fundamentally would only be a good thing in his eyes.) But I'm incredibly leery of an eleven year old making a political choice. (It's why I can't except a sweeping condemnation of Slytherin house.) I think the politics came later (around the time Sirius turned sixteen). But you saw Sirius in the pensieve. Again, I find it hard to believe that the eldest son of the House of Black didn't know how to give good face. I doubt Sirius brooded much. I'm betting he was in the thick of things from the moment he arrived. (This is all guess work of course. I don't think canon has much to say either way.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > As to Peter, I'm going to agree with colebiancardi here. Nothing > > in canon points to Peter being so magically challenged as to be > > considered a "virtual squib". > >>Valky: > In POA MacGonagall gives us the canon that refutes this statement > Betsy. Nobody thought Peter was anything of a wizard. Betsy Hp: *Hem hem. Pulls out hardback scholastic PoA* Professor McGonagall says this about Peter: "Never quite in their league, talent-wise." (p.207) She's comparing him to Sirius and James of whom she said earlier: "Both very bright, of course - exceptionally bright, in fact..." (p.204) So Peter is not quite in the league of two students Professor McGonagall classifies as "exceptionally bright". That's a long, long, *long*, way from "near squib". Again, it's *Harry* who links Peter with Neville (clever JKR encouraging us to think Peter's a nothing wizard). But the professor who knew him as a student did no such thing. At least, not that I can see. > >>Betsy Hp: > > For me, the most disturbing part of the pensieve memory was how > > *comfortable* James was with Peter's fawning. It seemed that > > Peter worked to be James's friend, not the other way around. > >>Valky: > I think this is true by around the time of the SWM scene. By then > Peter has become quite accomplished I'd imagine, and he is playing > James against himself. > Betsy Hp: Interesting. So you're thinking Peter was already turning towards the Death Eaters at this time? > >>Valky: > But in the initial stages of their friendship, I maintain Peter was > definitely an outsider with lacklustre potential in the friends > department, mostly because he ws an easy target due to his feckless > wizardry, like NL. James and Sirius most likely protected him in > the beginning. Betsy Hp: Huh. See, that's why I think Peter *turned* to James and Sirius. Doesn't Sirius sort of imply that Peter scurried for the strongest guy in the playground? It just reads to me that *Peter* sought out James. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I have a hard time reconciling this with the memory. Snape wasn't > > doing anything wrong. He wasn't picking on a poor big-eyed first > > year. He wasn't torturing puppies. He was studying for his > > OWL. And Sirius was bored. James decided that as a good friend > > he'd entertain Sirius by picking on the outsider, the weird kid > > with bad social skills and a funky homelife. > Valky: > Yes I agree that this reads right. But again it reads all wrong > outside the pensieve so how can it be the right of the story? Betsy Hp: Ah, here's where we have our breakdown. For me it reads right *outside* the pensieve as well. From the language of the Map, to the way Sirius treats an unconscious Snape, to what Lily says about James, to what Sirius and Lupin say about their school-days, to what Harry reads in those old detention cards it seems fairly clear that James led his own little gang of "trouble makers", and that Snape was their most favoritist victim. > >>Valky: > Inside the pensieve, Snape is all those things, but all other canon > says there is much much more to this story and Snape is not all he > might seem there in that scene. I cannot step outside the pensieve > scene without questioning the opinion that they were picking on an > outsider because of his bad social skills and funky homelife. And I > wonder how anyone else can. Betsy Hp: I can, because for all the talk of Snape having a "Slytherin gang" we don't really see him with a group of friends. The memories Harry dragged up point to a lonely little boy from a not so great home. The very fact that a child arrived at Hogwarts with a strange knowledge of Dark Arts speaks to a not so great homelife, IMO. If an eleven year old knows about, oh smoking or drugging or porn or something I generally suspect he learned it at home. > >>Valky: > If James was picking on Snape because of his looks and isolation, > then what meaning does "Snape was neck deep in Dark Arts and James > always hated the Dark Arts" have, except to argue point blank that > Sirius and Lupin are a pair of liars. Betsy Hp: They aren't liars. I'm sure Snape did know a few curses. (Did he witness his mother flinging them in defense at an abusive husband? Or a grandfather or brother using them against the sister or daughter who shamed them by willfully marrying a muggle? Did cousins use the nasty little half-blood for target practice?) But I'm also pretty confident that Snape (who seems to be fairly poor in the pensieve memory) also had shappy clothes and second hand books and probably a gigantic chip on his shoulder. For all we know James made a well meant joke and Snape replied with out of place anger and maybe a curse. > >>Valky: > If Snape was really a lonely boy who minds his own business, then > how on earth did he end up walking into the Shrieking Shack, if > Sirius didn't hogtie him and drag him down there? Can't you see the > contradiction, or do we really think Sirius is ESE? Betsy Hp: Oh, by the time of the Shack I'm quite sure Snape saw the Marauders as his business. I love Snape dearly, but he does have a problem with letting things go . No, I fully believe Snape went to the Shack hell bent on finding the Marauders in some sort of wrong doing, either to tell on them and get them thrown out for good or to blackmail them or something. What I *do* have a hard time buying is that sweet St. James *never* did a thing wrong to Snape. He was just trying to save him from his sinful ways. Or that Snape was considered too far gone by James and James was merely trying to save the innocents Snape preyed on. That the two boys hated each other on sight I can belive. I just think they're probably equally calpable in their enmity. > >>Valky: > > However, returning to the original context of my statement > about this, I don't think it would do Snape any harm to get chewed > out for his horribleness, it might not be his biggest lesson, but > regardless of what his intent is, just like James, he should have > the truth thrown in his face for him. Betsy Hp: I think Snape *has* had this happen. At the very least I think Voldemort killing the Potters is Snape's version of a "big lesson". I have LOLLIPOP tendencies, so I think the fact that Snape put Lily's life in danger and then was unable to save her gave him a whole heck of a lot of truth to deal with. I think it's a truth Snape is still having to wrestle with. And one he'll need to reconcile if he's to be truely redeemed. But I think, in many ways, James's story has been told. He started off as a bit of spoiled brat, learned a mighty big truth at the time of the Prank, managed to improve himself enough to win Lily's hand (and the rank of Head Boy), and proved his overall goodness by dying while trying to protect his family. It's a good story and one James should be proud of. Snape's story is still out there. And we've only seen flashes of it. Snape joined the Death Eaters, for some reason, he left them (or did he?), for some reason, he spied for the Order (or did he?), for some reason, and then he either betrayed the Order or served it to the fullest extent...for some reason. Basically we're waiting to find out how it started, where it went, and how it'll end. So it's a bit harder to judge how well Snape has done, IMO. Betsy Hp, who cannot believe the length of this post, congratulates (or apologizes) to any who made it through, and will now go to bed! From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 4 05:18:21 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:18:21 EDT Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons Message-ID: <1d8.46a8326b.30736a9d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141122 Julie earlier: >You can interpret it that way if you like. But canon (if we take >Dumbledore's word) also says that Snape didn't know who the prophecy > referred to, thus he was never *planning* to rid himself of his > nemesis. PJ replies: Sorry, by "he" I was referring to LV, not Snape. I should've been much clearer with that. Julie now: Okay, I see. Julie earlier: >Canon also states that Snape told Dumbledore of the prophecy before > GH, which gave Dumbledore the opportunity to put the Potters into > hiding PJ replies: Why would Snape have to tell Dumbledore about the prophesy since it was Dumbledore rather than Snape (supposedly) who'd heard the entire thing already? Julie now: Sorry, I goofed up here. I meant Snape told Dumbledore that he'd *revealed* the prophecy to Voldemort, thus giving Dumbledore the opportunity to act and get the Potters into hiding. Julie earlier: > Again, you can go with your idea that Snape was angry Harry didn't > die with James and Lily, but that takes a lot more twisting of > canon than the straightforward reading that Snape tried to save the > Potters. PJ replies: I said it *could* be read that way - and it easily can. Snape heard part (?) of the prophesy, gave it to LV, LV uses it and becomes Vapormort thus (if ESE) leaving Snape without his real "master", (if OFH!) taking one choice away from Snape and possibly being blamed by the other DEs for giving LV something that would destroy him. It's a more adult reason than simply saying Snape hated Harry because Harry reminded Snape of James, isn't it? Personally I don't believe Snape is an adult so I still believe the reason he hates Harry is James but it doesn't require twisting canon to support the "mad at Harry for not dying" theory either. Julie again: Again, there is that point I missed. Snape *told* Dumbledore what LV was planning to do. If he wanted to get rid of James (and Lily) then why did he tell Dumbledore? He effectively saved the Potters from LV (after he'd put them in danger), up until Peter betrayed them. This act indicates that he did want any of the Potters to die, so why be mad that Harry *didn't* die? Julie earlier: > In any case, I think this is a pretty weak argument for > Snape trying to give Voldemort an "automatic win," given that it > had as much chance of working (which Snape well knew) as I have of > learning to fly a broom. PJ replies: I'm talking canon and you're discussing what Snape felt, what he knew... Sorry but we *don't* know any of that! All we know for a fact is what is canon, the rest is suppostiion. I see the guesswork as the weaker arguement. Julie now: I agree it's not absolute canon. But it fits the characters. There's nothing to ever suggest Dumbledore would expel Harry--or any student--for anything less than a truly malicious act. And Snape doesn't come off as stupid, so I can't believe he doesn't realize that fact about Dumbledore. But as you say, that's a matter of opinion. PJ earlier: > 3) Add to that the fact that in canon Snape takes the UV and > follows through by performing the AK on Dumbledore. Not canon but > still suspicious to me is the question of whether Snape made sure > Harry would not learn Occlumency even though he knew the reason > behind that need. Julie: > Sorry, but this again isn't much of an argument. We have no proof > Snape *made sure* Harry would not learn Occlumency. Not even much > evidence in support. PJ replies: That is why I said I had no canon for it, just my suspicions.... We seem to have read that part quite differently. Julie now: Agreed. That is a very hotly debated topic. Julie earlier: > The Tower scene and Snape's AK remain shrouded in doubt. Yes, we > know what Harry *saw*, and what we saw through him, but we have no > idea what Dumbledore or Snape were thinking, what conversations they > may have had before the Tower scene that might be relevant, or if > they communicated by Legilimency right before Snape's AK. We can't > even be sure if it was an AK, or if there was more than one spell > at work. PJ replies: Ok, so canon works when it's pro Snape but it's questionable when it's not? Then it's pretty useless as a discussion tool. We're told Snape performed the AK on Dumbledore after taking the UV to finish Draco's work if he couldn't. It's fairly straightforward... And yes, new canon in book 7 *could* negate the canon in books 1-6 but for now, that's all we've got to work with. Julie again: Please reread my words. I never questioned the canon here. Canon: We know that Harry saw Snape point his wand at Dumbledore, say the AV curse, and Dumbledore fly back and fall. Not canon: What Snape and Dumbledore were thinking, what conversations they may have had before the Tower scene, if they communicated via legilimency during the Tower scene, if Snape was performing more than one spell while speaking the AK. We know what Harry saw, but that doesn't mean it's the full story. We are still missing a dozen or more pertinent facts, including what Dumbledore meant when he said "Severus, please...", whether Dumbledore could or could not recover from the cave horcrux curse by the time Snape did arrive, why Snape went so easy on Harry while Harry was trying to crucio him, etc, etc. That's what I mean when I say the scene is shrouded in doubt. Whether they end up proving DDM or ESE Snape, we are certain to learn more facts about this scene in Book 7. Either way those facts won't negate the canon event we saw on the Tower, but they will explain what Harry (and we) did see, much as new facts explained exactly what Hermoine saw in PS/SS when Snape was staring with intent concentration at Harry while Harry's broom wobbled. It could have been to obvious--Snape trying to knock Harry off his broom and kill him. But it wasn't. Just as it could be the obvious on the Tower--Snape AKed Dumbledore to save himself. But it could also be something else. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 4 05:54:37 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:54:37 EDT Subject: Harry IS Snape! Message-ID: <212.a8f3dfb.3073731d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141123 Julie earlier: > Read: Harry KNOWS that his perspective on Snape is out of whack, to the point that he argues with > Dumbledore over fetching Snape when he *knows full well* that Snape > has already saved saved Dumbledore from one horcrux curse. Alla: Erm... I think that whether Harry's perspective on Snape is out of whack is really, really remains to be seen. And as to Harry's reluctance to fetch Snape, well, he may be not so wrong, IMO. I mean, unless you are convinced that DD was dying, which I am not, then we have alive DD before Snape came and dead DD afterwards. Julie again: I was speaking of Harry's perspective before the Tower scene. He admits to himself that he blames Snape just because it feels good. His hate and rage in Chapter 8 are out of proportion to Snape's crimes *as he knows them at that time.* Whether his opinion of Snape as evil turns out to be true, Harry put the horse before the wagon (or is that the other way around?). He hated Snape with a consuming passion to the point of hoping Snape would die, all before he had a rational reason to do so (since the prophecy revelation and Snape's AK of Dumbledore came later). My point about Harry not getting Snape right away is that Harry's feelings are overwhelming his rational brain. Instead of focusing on the facts--Dumbledore is clearly ill, Snape saved him from the previous horcrux (and barely at that), and Harry has no clue himself what is involved in recovering from a horcrux curse without adverse effects--Harry focuses on his hatred of Snape. That gets in his way. Granted, not for long, as Harry does agree to get Snape the second time Dumbledore asks, but it's still the kind of reaction that could well trip him up when he faces Voldemort. (And the fact that Snape would shortly AK Dumbledore is a moot point. All Harry knows at this moment is that Dumbledore went through hell in the cave, and Snape has direct experience with horcrux curses. Ergo, get Snape and don't argue. ;-) Julie earlier: The big question, the issue that I think is going to > prove one of the most critical in HP, and deliberately so on the part > of JKR, is whether adult Harry will become adult Snape. > If this is to be a central issue/theme of HP, it does require that > Snape be DDM or at least OFH, and because this theme *has* > been set up so obviously in Chapter 8 with Harry's unreasonable > hatred of Snape, I think this whole scene is another strong piece > of support for DDM!Snape. If Snape turned out to be ESE as Harry > suspected all along--sometimes *irrationally* by his own tacit > admission--then Harry has little opportunity to willingly release this > destructive and misplaced hatred against a man who hasn't earned > that level of enmity (don't scream, Snape-haters-we're talking about > Harry's feelings through HBP Chapter 8!). Alla: I completely disagree. it would be VERY satisfying to me if Harry forgives the man who is truly guilty of all the things he said in Spinner's End. I think it would be much harder for Harry to do so than to acknowledge Snape's positive actions if there are any No, Snape who helped made Harry an orphan, Snape who killed Harry's mentor in front of Harry's eyes is REALLY hard to forgive and if Harry manages to do so, I think he can truly call himself a hero. Julie again: Snape who helped make Harry an orphan--or at least set in motion some of the events that led to that outcome--is already canon. So is Snape who killed Harry's mentor in front of Harry's eyes--just that he doesn't know *why* Snape did it yet. Snape's done more than enough to Harry to make forgiveness difficult, even if Snape is DDM. And if Snape is DDM, that adds another realization for Harry, that people are not always GOOD or BAD. Just as Dumbledore could be a wise, kind man, but act ruthlessly if necessary (sending Harry to live with the Dursleys), so Snape can be a bitter, vindictive man who may act selflessly to save Harry (as an example). > Marianne: > As always, an interesting post. However, where in this view of Snape, does Snape's tale of remorse come in? If he has firmly held onto his hatred of James from school age through the present, (which I agree he has, like a barnacle to a hull) then it seems like the remorse he told Dumbledore about is a somewhat selective remorse, if indeed it existed at all. And for me, that still calls into question how much Snape can be believed. Pippin: The one place I disagree with Julie's excellent post is the idea that Snape wouldn't have been sorry to learn that James was dead. Hatred, no matter how irrational, is not the same thing as wanting to kill someone. No one would deny that Harry hates Draco; all the same Harry was horrified by the result of his spell and surely would have been sorry if Draco had died -- not because he cared about Draco but because Harry did not want to be a killer. Quirrell distinguishes between those who hate and those who are willing to kill: "But Snape always seemed to hate me so much." "Oh, he does," said Quirrell casually, "heavens, yes. He was at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know? They loathed each other. But he never wanted you _dead_." Is it such a stretch to think that despite trying to get James expelled, and hexing him whenever he got the chance, despite joining the Death Eaters, Snape did not want to kill James? Julie now: In fact I did note in my post that Snape didn't want to murder James, any more than Harry plans on murdering Snape. But it is very easy to *wish* someone dead, as Harry does Snape. It's another thing entirely to want to kill that person, or to realize you have contributed to their death. Pippin: Bella has her doubts about whether Snape has what it takes... "you were once again absent while the rest of us ran dangers" "the usual slithering out of action" Though surely Snape hated Sirius as much as he hated James, he didn't think, even in PoA that he had reason to kill him, "Give me a reason and I swear I will" despite the fact that he believed Sirius was a Death Eater, a traitor, a murderer, and had once tried to kill *him*. Perhaps teenaged Snape, like Draco, fancied he could become a killer, but was revolted when faced with the reality. Julie: I think you nailed it, Pippin. Snape became a DE, but we don't have any evidence that he actually killed anyone. In fact, Bella makes it sound like he had a solid history of "slithering" out of the dirty work. I can see Snape coming to Voldemort with his Potions skills and his talent for snooping, alternating between brewing elixirs of life for Voldemort and skulking around for information (as when he overheard the prophecy). But once he had to face the reality of the actual killing, he balked and realized it wasn't in him. And perhaps that moment of clarity came when he realized what Voldemort planned to do with the prophecy information. Marianne: I'm not saying that Snape wanted to kill James himself. I just don't buy that he was seized with regret once someone else killed James. Yes, Snape may very well not wanted to raise his wand and perform an actual murder. Bella may be right about him and he has managed to avoid some of the messier actions of DEs. He may even be revolted by the idea of killing. However, he seems to have okay with passing on the words of the prophecy, which he must have known would put other people in mortal danger. The idea that Snape would have no regrets about nameless people he has put in danger, but suddenly change sides in a war once his nemesis was killed doesn't click with me. Given the history between James and Snape, I find it hard to swallow that, in the midst of this horrific, years-long war, when all sorts of people were dying and disappearing, Snape would suddenly find himself in a fit of remorse over the death of his long-time enemy. Julie now: I'm not sure Snape did recognize he was putting people in mortal danger. I think he was just eager to do his job for Voldemort, not really thinking ahead about where it would all lead. Of course he should have known, but the abstract concept is much easier to dismiss than the cold, hard facts. Once Voldemort told him it meant the Potters, and that he was going to kill them, putting names and faces to it brought that reality into harsh focus. If Voldemort had named another Wizard family, I think Snape would still have been hit in the gut by the reality of what he'd done. I don't know if he would have followed the same path to Dumbledore, but I think he would have left LV, perhaps to meet up with a fate similar to Regulus Black's. BTW, do we know exactly how long Snape was with the DEs? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 4 05:53:30 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:53:30 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141124 > > >>Valky: > > No and Yes, I certainly don't think all of the students that got > > the wrong end of this pairs wands were evil and wrong. But I do > > think the comparison between the F/G and the J/S pair is telling > > in regard to the kind of situations generally presiding when J/S > > did get mean. > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, you picked a wrong analogy for me there Valky . Since I'm > kind of hoping one of the twins turns out to be evil as an > explination of their general creepiness they're not a really good > example of doing it for the principle. (The twins generally do > what's best for the twins, IMO.) Which is why *I* think the > comparison made between James and Sirius and the twins is telling in > an entirely different way. Valky: On the contrary, I think F/G are the perfect example of starting with the principle and getting wildy carried away with themselves. What do they think of Percy? Really. Yeah, they are darn awful to him, and won't let him get to his feet before they knock him down again, exactly like J/S in the pensieve, but they absolutely started with principle. Percy has the wind far up in him, he shows that he has outright disrespect and shame for the parents that sacrificed much to give him the best chance in life, he boasts, he looks down on people and he is superficial and shallow to the bone long long time. Yes they have a principle, no they don't have the right to be so cruel. They are the perfect example IMO. Then what about Montague, takes cheap shots in Quidditch, hangs incessantly on the Weasley's family, is all round nasty. Do the Twins have the right to almost kill him, NO! But did Montague stamp on their principles? Yes, yes, yes. Then Umbridge, foul woman, should they have torn her inquisition apart, Oh yes!, and they even announced that they were acting on principle before they did it. How can that be the wrong example? Sure they have done some downright savage things, but to say that they didn't think that person was out of line before starting, or to say that they cared for nothing but themselves, is just not canon IMO. > > > >>Valky: > > > > OTOH, he does really believe in championing good principles, and > > so does Sirius, that's their inner self, and it doesn't change > > IMO, they just misrepresent it out hormone driven teenage self > > righteousness, I think. > > Betsy Hp: > Is there any canon on this? I know Lupin says (or is it Sirius) > that James hated the Dark Arts (which...okay. A bit weird for an > eleven year old, IMO, but has the war started or something?) Valky: Yes, the war has started, and people are dying and being tortured by Dark Arts enthusiasts in their world. This is a perfect place to look for political eleven year olds, just ask around post the terrorism in the world today. Besides, we do have absolute canon of Sirius having a political mind at the age of eleven, he grew up in a Dark Arts family and had already decided that there was no good in what they did or stood for, all his high talk about James definitely points to a comparison of souls between Sirius family to his left and James to his right. Betsy: > but that James > thinks he can tell if someone is worthy of punishment or not is a > bit... well, it doesn't impress. Frankly I think it's something he > needed to get over. Valky: James could see Dark for what it was, a lot of the time, like his son I'm sure. But, yes, he was too young to be thinking he knew all the answers, and he of course will have been frequently wrong. As for dishing out punishment, I don't mean to imply that they went brazenly with the plan to sort out the chaff with a heavy hand, that sort of thing most likely came of itself through the course of years, after all, as big, as they are, bullies, Fred and George get their share of being provoked into it, and so, likely, will have J/S. Betsy: > Sirius deciding that someone was worthy of death > gave James a much needed wakeup call, I think. Valky: Oh I disagree that Sirius thought that Snape was worthy of death and thus planned the prank. Snape thinks this, but we know darn well that Dumbledore disagrees to a point. That point has *got* to be that Sirius thought otherwise. Since that's exactly what Snape is getting at when Dumbledore gently refuses to encourage it. OTOH I think it's pretty obvious what Sirius intended by sending Snape to the werewolf, and pretty um stubborn (beg pardon) not to acknowledge it. "It's the risk that made it fun." Risk was not deadly to 'I am Mr Invincible' Sirius Black, and how often does Snape call James and Sirius cowards for fighting him two on one. If Snape was so tough, and they were cowards, how come facing a werewolf was certain death for Snape and good fun for Sirius. They are at cross purposes with each others bravado, it's got nothing at all to do with murder in the slightest. Betsy: > (I don't care *how* > old you are. Setting yourself up as the decider of right or wrong > is, well, wrong, IMO. Even Dumbledore hesitates.) Valky: Hmm, now I think that we are at cross purposes. I see what you're saying, but I disagree that what I say means J/S are setting themselves up as decider. What I am saying is that they set themselves up to be seen as, and have a reputation of people who defend what is right. I don't mean that they intended to dictate or preach to the masses, what is good and what is evil (except maybe just a little of that in Sirius). I mean that they, James especially, first thought it was admirable to defend the weak and show good magic to be powerful and strong against dark, but then got to the point where they were thinking how good it was to be admired, and got carried away showing off their tricks. > > > >>Valky: > > > > I doubt his haggard, shabby, mutilated appearances would have been > > very endearing to the general population... > > > > Betsy Hp: > First, Lupin is not, and never was, mutilated. That's movie > contamination. Canon Lupin is never described as having a single > scar (except for his bite?). Valky: No it's not. In POA Lupin tells Harry that he would bite and scratch himself when he was alone in the shack, before the Marauders managed to become animagii and keep him company. Betsy: > Second, we don't know that Lupin's parents were as poor as Lupin is > now. *They* weren't werewolves so they may have been able to afford > decent clothes for their son. (Lupin's not described as "shabby" in > the pensieve memory that I could find. He looked a bit peaky, > that's all.) Valky: I'll grant you that. But I do doubt that they are such a well to do family, I am sure Lupin is painted as someone from a pretty ordinary background. Betsy: > And third, Lupin *does* get chosen as a prefect. So even if > the Marauders weren't the only Gryffindor boys of their year, Lupin > must have stood out, in a good way, from the rest of the boys. Valky: That really doesn't speak to his first year in Hogwarts though, it speaks to what kind of person he was always capable of being, it speaks to another cheer for the power of J/S friendship in making Lupins school life a happier memory, but there's no certainty, and almost no chance, that he could have ended up a stand out popular boy without good friends coming to him beforehand. Betsy: > *Shy* I'd buy, but not oppressed. Valky: A child werewolf, not oppressed? Surely you jest Betsy. ;D Perhaps, you mean to refer to the fact that noone in Hogwarts knew except a few teachers, which is fair. But Werewolves *are* oppressed, Lupin was required to hide himself from other students once a month and he knew darn well how everyone felt about werewolves wether they knew he was one or not, one slip and he's cactus in the eyes of the WW. He did live under the oppression, if only in secret, all Dumbledore did for him couldn't take away the prejudice of the world from his emotional burden. He came to Hogwarts this way, is what I mean, bearing the the weight of years of being an outcast, I'm sure he was quite the charmer with everyone, not. > Betsy: > I *do* think it speaks well of James that he *remained* Lupin's > friend once he found out about Lupin's "furry little problem", but > merely making friends with Lupin in the first place doesn't impress > me tons. Valky: Well it's not supposed to impress 'tons'. The point is that James is a pureblood, wealthy sports champ from a respected line of Wizards, he was *easily* well in with people that could do things for him, but he chose *friends*, whatever they had bulging out of their closets. The ones who most people will have steered well clear of - The angry outcast of a Dark Wizard family, the obvious talentless bully magnet, and the sad weak looking boy who keeps turning up to class with mysterious injuries. Sure it's not hugely impressive, but it contradicts point blank all the snob evidence in the pensieve, and should make us question what he *really* thinks of Snape, IMO. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I fully buy that Sirius and his mother went at it hammer and > tongs from the moment Sirius learned to talk . And I'm sure James > picked up on the fact that Sirius was *not* the favored son. (Which > if James really *was* against the Dark Arts so fundamentally would > only be a good thing in his eyes.) But I'm incredibly leery of an > eleven year old making a political choice. (It's why I can't except > a sweeping condemnation of Slytherin house.) I think the politics > came later (around the time Sirius turned sixteen). Valky: I am also unable to accept the sweeping condemnation of Slytherin House, but isn't Harry a little political about that in itself at age eleven. Sure, he's not a genius of philosophy, but he really sincerely doesn't want to go bad, and based on what he knows he forms the opinion thats its separated down this line bewteen Slytherin and the rest of Hogwarts. Harry was fundamentally against the Dark Arts at eleven, and he is told so often how *like his father* he is. IMO Sirius is not a liar (he may have bad traits but lying is not one of them) James always hated Dark Arts, Sirius grew up in a Dark Arts home he hated. And James and Sirius took to each other like birds of a feather. All in all, I find it hard to believe how much I need to debate this virtually given knowledge of who J/S are. > Betsy: > But you saw Sirius in the pensieve. Again, I find it hard to > believe that the eldest son of the House of Black didn't know how to > give good face. I doubt Sirius brooded much. Valky: Fair enough, the brooding in the corner was really just a speculative suggestion. OTOH Sirius shows how painful Grimmauld Place is for him, I am quite certain that just a day into Hogwarts and out of there he'd be hard pressed to give off a welcoming aura, even if he could give good face. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > As to Peter, I'm going to agree with colebiancardi here. > > > Nothing in canon points to Peter being so magically challenged > > > as to be considered a "virtual squib". > > > >>Valky: > > In POA MacGonagall gives us the canon that refutes this statement > > Betsy. Nobody thought Peter was anything of a wizard. > > Betsy Hp: > *Hem hem. Pulls out hardback scholastic PoA* > > Professor McGonagall says this about Peter: > > "Never quite in their league, talent-wise." (p.207) > > She's comparing him to Sirius and James of whom she said earlier: > > "Both very bright, of course - exceptionally bright, in fact..." > (p.204) > > So Peter is not quite in the league of two students Professor > McGonagall classifies as "exceptionally bright". That's a long, > long, *long*, way from "near squib". Again, it's *Harry* who links > Peter with Neville (clever JKR encouraging us to think Peter's a > nothing wizard). But the professor who knew him as a student did no > such thing. At least, not that I can see. Valky: Ok my mistake, that must not be the quote I am looking for. OTOH MacGonagall is speaking of the dead as far as she's concerned, she could just be acting polite. Are you sure that's all that is said about Peter's ability in that particular scene? Maybe it was Hagrid or Flitwick who reminisced how awful Sirius was for killing someone who they thought could never defend himself. In any case, no matter how much we debate the finer points of 'virtual squib', Sirius calls Peter weak, talentless, and needing protection, and its a huge surprise to everyone that he wasn't easily offed by Sirius Black, not least of all Sirius himself, in the pensieve he has an obviously repulsive persona, so couple that with not being really good at wizardry and you get the picture that I think is Peter in his first year at Hogwarts, really quite pathetic and helpless, I'd say. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > For me, the most disturbing part of the pensieve memory was how > > > *comfortable* James was with Peter's fawning. It seemed that > > > Peter worked to be James's friend, not the other way around. > > > >>Valky: > > I think this is true by around the time of the SWM scene. By then > > Peter has become quite accomplished I'd imagine, and he is playing > > James against himself. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Interesting. So you're thinking Peter was already turning towards > the Death Eaters at this time? Valky: Ooh good of you to ask Betsy.. Yes, I do think Peter showed his first signs of being a little something else by this time. But he didn't let anyone know that he was capable, why leave the safety of J/S protection while its still useful to him? LIke Ron's cosy pocket was a good hiding place for 12 years, so do I think the protection of J/S was also as far back as school years. It lights up a whole new path of speculation too . Since Dumbledore was studying his Bertha Jorkins memory *after* it was confirmed that Peter had run to Voldemort, and he *really* wanted to know what forgetful Bertha Jorkins thought she'd find behind shed when she got jinxed. It adds up that Dumbledore was looking at a memory that was related to the only person that he *knew* was helping LV, Peter. So here I think is the well hid *first* of Peters evil deeds, what it is I can't really figure out, because I haven't got a chance to read GOf yet, but my best guess is that it has to do with finding out what resources Peter has shared with Voldie since his ressurection, perhaps his hiding spot (Peter's really good at those). Valky Now so tired she can't finish answering the whole post, but will come back to it later. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 4 06:37:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 06:37:42 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! (Forgiveness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "krista7" wrote: > > Lupinlore wrote: > > And if the forgiveness is one-sided, well, Harry becomes a kind > > of saint-like figure, if not a Christ figure forgiving the world > > that crucified him. Such is the foundation of a silly and insipid > > and preachy saga that will make for very good kindling. > > Saraquel: > > Yes Lupinlore, I've been struggling with that as well. But I > > think that Lily, to date, is the Christ-like figure. I posted > > something on that ages ago, that her death parallels Christ's > > death on the cross, which I came up with based on JKR's > > statements about her faith, and the fact that at the end of the > > series, no-one would be in doubt about what her faith was. Krista: > I disagree with the idea that Harry has to be a Christ-like figure > to forgive Snape. To me, at the point that Harry is at the start of > HBP, to begin the forgiveness process requires empathy; it means > you have to acknowledge you yourself are imperfect, that you can > say to yourself, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." That kind > of self-knowledge isn't super-human or really divine, to me. Geoff: We had a lot of discussion on Harry as a Christ figure way back - particularly before Hans decided to go off and start his own website. The following is a part of what I wrote back in message 80110 which was looking at Christianity and other beliefs but this extract is perhaps the most relevant to this thread. "I believe people who like the Harry Potter novels and use them in their search can find it to be in keeping with their views as you say but I am viewing it from the standpoint of a committed believer that Jesus is God in human form. ***** OK, you feel that you must protest any attempt to tie JKR to one religion. I accept that although I speak from a personal view; I still see Harry as paralleling the Christian's search for and relationship with God. He was saved by a loving sacrifice and has enjoyed its protection. Christ gave himself lovingly as a sacrifice which will continue to protect those who accept it at face value. Harry's life and outlook have been influenced openly and subconsciously by what he has learned about his mother's "gift" and he sees the way in which his life ought to move forward as a result. Likewise, the life a genuine Christian is influenced in the same way by the gift of salvation through the resurrection and we learn to seek the way in which our lives in the real world should move forward. (It is an interesting fact about Harry that he inspires totally opposed reactions from Christians in particular. There are folk in my own church who are converted folk like myself who hold diametrically opposite views on the books; it makes for interesting discussions.) I can only put forward my own views; I accept that others may not agree because they have their own interpretation of what life is all about. The difficulty is that not all beliefs can lead to the same outcome. But that is OT as far as this discussion group is concerned." From Nanagose at aol.com Tue Oct 4 06:45:29 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 06:45:29 -0000 Subject: How long was Snape a DE? was: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <212.a8f3dfb.3073731d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141126 > BTW, do we know exactly how long Snape was with the DEs? > > Julie > Christina: I'm assuming you mean do we know how long Snape was with the Death Eaters before he approached Dumbledore. We know he approached Dumbledore before the Potters died (in 1981). Snape graduated from Hogwarts in...1978, I think, is the generally accepted year. That's just a little over three years, if Snape was recruited directly out of school. Although Draco Malfoy was made a Death Eater while just in his sixth year, it does seem sort of a rarity. The other Slytherins are surprised that Draco is given a second thought by the Dark Lord. Zabini even points out Draco's age: (HBP, Scholastic, pg 151-2) "And you think *you'll* be able to do something for him?" asked Zabini scathingly. "Sixteen years old and not even fully qualified yet?" ..... Crabbe and Goyle were both sitting with their mouths open like gargoyles. Pansy was gazing down at Malfoy as though she had never seen anything so awe-inspiring. (end quote- emphasis JKR's) We know that, at the very least, Crabbe and Goyle come from Death Eater families with plenty of support for LV. The fact that they are completely shocked by Draco's status in the organization shows, IMO, that Voldemort wasn't recruiting kids the first time around. Also, we know his true motivations for giving Draco his task- punishment for Daddy Malfoy's mistakes (fumbling the DOM situation, carelessness with LV's horcrux). I find it difficult to believe that one is qualified to teach at Hogwarts just by completely the standard 7 year run at school. I am convinced that a year or two of intense research or an internship of sorts would be required in the field of study, no matter how well the applicant did on his or her school exams. I also agree with Julie (and many others)- I think Snape did mostly sneak-work and Potions for LV, meaning he would have to have some additional Potions training (although I suppose if you take into account the fact that Snape was an intense studier *during* school, you could claim that he knew more when he graduated than most of the advanced students). I think Potions is what got Snape into the Death Eater business in the first place (I like to think that someone in his little Slytherin gang who already worked for LV saw the Dark Lord's need for Potions expertise and said, "Hey, I know a guy who is crazy at Potions..."). Actually, your question really made me wonder, how long was *Regulus Black* a Death Eater. Because really, he died in 1980 while in LV's employ. He was younger than Sirius, so the earliest he could have graduated from Hogwarts was 1979. Which brings up a whole other slew of questions concerning the RAB issue, but that's for another thread. :) Christina From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 4 06:49:35 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 06:49:35 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > > Kemper now: > > Snape suggests Sectumserpra is Dark Magic: > > "Who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic?" > > Sure, Reducto used on someone (if it works on living beings) could > > be could be used for Dark purpose, but it is not Dark Magic. Dark > > Magic is about the intent of the Magic being created. Sectumserpra > > cut always?) wasn't created to shred paper, it was created with > > the intention of hurting/maiming another human being, and that is > > what makes it Dark. Is there any consensus? Nora: > Upthread someone else asked about Obliviate, so now I think I have > what could be used to make a distinction, although I'm not sure I buy > it. It's the classic difference between necessary and sufficient; or > another angle on the same idea is whether it has any other > purpose/use. > > I believe you are right in saying that Sectumsempra is necessarily > Dark--it has no other good uses, and it always hurts/maims another > human being. Obliviate *can* be used to harm another human being, > but it's not necessarily used that way. > > This is by no means airtight, but I think it's a criterion worth > considering. Geoff: I commented fairly recently (in message 140757) on a discussion on Latin in spells.... He had already met Rictusempra earlier: 'Harry pointed his wand straight at Malfoy and shouted "Rictusempra". A jet of silver light hit Malfoy in the stomach and he doubled up, wheezing... ...Harry had hit him with a Tickling Charm and he could barely move for laughing.' (COS "The Duelling Club" pp.143-44 UK edition) This may have been a fairly harmless spell but its structure is of note. "Rictus" is a "grin" or "open mouth" and "sempra" is derived from "semper" meaning "always". "Sectumsempra" shares part of its name. "Sectum" is the supine of the verb "secto" - to cut and means "in order to cut". Add on "sempra" and you have a spell which apparently makes permanent cuts. It is fortunate that Snape was around otherwise I think it possible that Draco could have bled to death. It was certainly very stupid of Harry to use an untried spell without attempting to determine its meaning. The very use of the "-sempra" suffix implies that this was meant as an attacking spell and that is underlined by what is written in the Potions book... "Harry was about to put his book away again when he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned 'For Enemies', that he had marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did..." (HBP "Sectumsempra" p.484 UK edition) Surely, this should have screamed out "Danger" at Harry if he had really thought about it because how can it have any use other than a dark purpose? From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 4 08:07:34 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:07:34 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <104.6a28439e.307201a3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141128 Elyse here wou has got to congratulate Julie on an excellent post and begs for permission to use part of it to make a Remorseful!Snape case. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: >> > Secondly, after Snape is named the DADA professor, Harry says > savagely, "Well, there's one good thing. Snape'll be gone by the end > of the year." After Ron asks why, and Harry reminds him of the DADA > curse, Harry adds (with what I am certain is complete sincerity) "I'm > going to be keeping my fingers crossed for another death..." And > Hermoine predictably reacts with shock and reproach, while Ron > says "reasonably" (showing Ron can be rational on the subject > of Snape, while Harry has no such ability) that Snape might go > back to teaching Potions the next year. > > Harry really hates Snape. I mean, he really, REALLY hates Snape. > He would be very happy if Snape were dead, no less. (And thanks > again to Krista for pointing out what a goldmine this chapter is on > Harry's feelings for Snape, which JKR goes to great lengths to > detail over several pages). > >Pippin: >The one place I disagree with Julie's excellent post is the idea >that >Snape wouldn't have been sorry to learn that James was dead. >Hatred, no matter how irrational, is not the same thing as wanting >to kill someone. No one would deny that Harry hates Draco; all the >same Harry was horrified by the result of his spell and surely >would >have been sorry if Draco had died -- not because he cared about >Draco but because Harry did not want to be a killer. Elyse: I agree with Pippin. Obviously Harry hates Snape with burning resentment/anger/hurt, heck, all of those emotions and more. At this point, Snape hasnt even killed DD. Yet Harry says he would be happy if Snape dies. And although he says it with obvious sincerety and no doubt he thinks he would be happy if it happens, I wonder what Harry would have felt if Snape had dropped dead the next day. I'm pretty sure Harry wouldnt have whooped or cheered or anything of the sort. While he may not have shed tears or anything, he wouldnt have thrown any parties to celebrate. I think he would have had a complex tangle of emotions and one of the ingredients would have been pity. He would have been genuinely sorry Snape was dead. So I dont see why the same logic cant be applied to Snape. I'm sure he hated James and co for many reasons, not just the infamous prank. And I'm sure he may have said as Harry did that he would be happy to see the Marauders dead, and he may have believed it as Harry did. (Another parallel between the two if Snape really did say something of the sort) So maybe this illusion of being happy when James died was shattered as Voldemort told Snape about the intended victims of the prophecy interpretation. I think its a fair supposition that Snape really did feel sorry, even if it was just a tiny little bit, that James was dead. And the fact that he owed the guy a life debt didnt exactly make things any less complicated. Like Julie says herself Note that > being content for James to die does not mean Snape wanted to > murder James, just as Harry doesn't want to murder Snape--at > least not in Chapter 8--just that each would be happy to see their > respective nemesis's dead and gone forever. Or so they think. > Julie: > It's an interesting irony. Snape believes Harry *is* just like James, > yet Snape never saw and still does not see the whole James Potter, > the boy who grew out of his childish ways to become a good man, > and died with dignity. If Harry learns to see the whole Snape--not > just the mean, vindictive teacher, but the man who stayed loyal > to Dumbledore no matter what was asked of him, and who helped > (will help) Harry defeat Voldemort both by protecting him and giving > him tools he'd need for that final battle, even if Snape did so with a > great deal of belligerence--then Harry will win in a way that Snape > never can and never will--by becoming not just a hero, but a good > man, just like his father. > Elyse: Would it be too much of a stretch to wonder if Snape is the one to whom this happens? In the remote possibility that Snape survives Book 7, maybe he will see the side of Harry that he has refused to acknowledge. If he can overcome his myopic vision of Harry, he may finally (and about time!) grow up! Then he and Harry can share the growing out of resentment process and finally have the spirit of forgiveness break down the invisible hatred between the two. I'm not saying theyre going to hug each other and rush off into the sunset. Snape will still be slightly nasty, sullen, sarcastic etc but there may be no more picking on Harry. Just a sort of truce where each goes his own way separately and live without outright hate of the other person Julie >> If this can be considered a theory, how about: Harry *Isn't* Snape, So > Yes, Forgiving Is Tantamount To Obtaining Self-possession, And Most > Importantly, Achieving Manhood Not Oppressively Tainted. > Translation to acronym: H.I.S.S.Y. F.I.T. T.O. S.A.M. I. A.M. N.O.T. Elyse: How about Forgiveness And Love: Severus' Egregious Path Rerouted to Eschew The Evil, Neutralizing Small-Minded Envious Sorcerer In acronym form: FALSE PRETENSES where the central premise of the ship, or rather the lifeboat, would be that Harry forgives Snape who is transformed by the powers of love (from Dumbledore) and forgiveness (from Harry) into a slightly less caustic man, but is still nasty enough to be a thoroughly unpleasant person. ;-) Elyse From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 4 08:33:59 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 08:33:59 -0000 Subject: Bullying continued... WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141129 > > >>Valky: > > But in the initial stages of their friendship, I maintain Peter > > was definitely an outsider with lacklustre potential in the > > friends department, mostly because he ws an easy target due to his > > feckless wizardry, like NL. James and Sirius most likely protected > > him in the beginning. > > Betsy Hp: > Huh. See, that's why I think Peter *turned* to James and Sirius. > Doesn't Sirius sort of imply that Peter scurried for the strongest > guy in the playground? It just reads to me that *Peter* sought out > James. Valky: I think that will have been too obvious for sneaky rat Peter, to be honest, and I don't know why you'd think he wouldn't get shunted around by other bullies on his way to becoming one of the Marauders. Do you think he got his reputation as a weakling by managing himself just fine without them? Peter may have *chosen* J/S from afar and then manipulated himself into a position where he could be picked up on their trail and reside comfortably in their protection, but that only goes even more strongly *to* soft touch social justice James, doesn't it Then again I can see it your way, too. Sirius does imply that Peter always sniffed out stronger wizards than himself to protect him, which could mean he stayed under the protection of other people he was able to suck up to over time before he became their friend, however, I don't think we should exaggerate this angle /too/ much or else how are we to believe that James, Sirius and Lily all could think he was harmless and trustworthy. > Betsy Hp: > Ah, here's where we have our breakdown. For me it reads right > *outside* the pensieve as well. From the language of the Map, Valky: How does the language of the map prove that Snape is exactly what he seems in the Pensieve? Sure it proves that the Marauders had smart mouths where Severus Snape was concerned, and it agrees and even foreshadows Snape being their favourite target. But what does it do for Snapes presence in the pensieve? Betsy: > to the way Sirius treats an unconscious Snape, Valky: hehe. Yeah, it fits. But hey, Snape *was* being an obtuse b**t**rd in the scenes before, so it goes to prove more of what I say too. I mean if someone salivated over watching you and your best friend left in the world die (well worse than die, actually) for a crime you didn't commit..? Would you really call it bullying when you cheerfully let him bump into things on the way out? Betsy: > to what Lily says about James, Valky: But that's *in* the pensieve. Betsy: > to what Sirius and Lupin say about their school-days, Valky: They said J/S got carried way with themselves and agreed they were out of line. They didn't say that they thought Snape was just some greasy ugly kid who couldn't make friends, they literally gave only one excuse which was that Snape was into Dark Arts and James hated Dark Arts. It doesn't agree with the Pensieve read that you gave : "James decided that as a good friend he'd entertain Sirius by picking on the outsider, the weird kid with bad social skills and a funky homelife.' There's no mention of his homelife, social skills, or him being a weird outsider in what Lupin and Sirius tell Harry, that read exists *in* the Pensieve SWM scene, which shows only *one* day in their lives. Betsy: > to what Harry reads in those old detention cards it seems fairly > clear that James led his own little gang of "trouble makers", and > that Snape was their most favoritist victim. Valky: Ahh yes, what Snape would have us believe. But then Harry himself thinks it stupid as he goes through card after card of "petty misdeeds". You know, I really need to get this straight though, now. Do you *really* believe that the SWM scene absolutely proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that from the very start, four years prior to that day, James and Sirius were just the kind of people that chose some helpless victim for no reason but that he was ugly, and threw hexes at him for fun? Honestly? > > > >>Valky: > > Inside the pensieve, Snape is all those things, but all other > > canon says there is much much more to this story and Snape is not > > all he might seem there in that scene. I cannot step outside the > > pensieve scene without questioning the opinion that they were > > picking on an outsider because of his bad social skills and funky > > homelife. And I wonder how anyone else can. > > Betsy Hp: > I can, because for all the talk of Snape having a "Slytherin gang" > we don't really see him with a group of friends. The memories Harry > dragged up point to a lonely little boy from a not so great home. > The very fact that a child arrived at Hogwarts with a strange > knowledge of Dark Arts speaks to a not so great homelife, IMO. If > an eleven year old knows about, oh smoking or drugging or porn or > something I generally suspect he learned it at home. Valky: But that's not a great argument in my book, Sirius has even more reason to hold himself above Snape then doesn't he? Sirius had no good homelife to speak of and yet it's impossible to imagine he could have thought of someone with an interest in furthering the evils of the world that have made him suffer, as anything but ugly? > > >>Valky: > > If James was picking on Snape because of his looks and isolation, > > then what meaning does "Snape was neck deep in Dark Arts and James > > always hated the Dark Arts" have, except to argue point blank that > > Sirius and Lupin are a pair of liars. > > Betsy Hp: > They aren't liars. I'm sure Snape did know a few curses. Valky: Know curses? He was inventing them O_o Betsy: > But I'm also pretty > confident that Snape (who seems to be fairly poor in the pensieve > memory) also had shabby clothes and second hand books and probably a > gigantic chip on his shoulder. For all we know James made a well > meant joke and Snape replied with out of place anger and maybe a > curse. Valky: 'shrug' I dunno. Could have been. But I don't doubt that could have been remedied in the long run if there wasn't the deeper difference between them of being one being opposed to and and one being pro Dark Magic. > Betsy: > What I *do* have a hard time buying is that sweet St. James *never* > did a thing wrong to Snape. He was just trying to save him from his > sinful ways. Or that Snape was considered too far gone by James and > James was merely trying to save the innocents Snape preyed on. That > the two boys hated each other on sight I can believe. Valky: Ok, but I am sure I don't sell that idea anyway. I say St James *did* do wrong to Snape HUGE wrong, because he was totally full of himself in the pensieve, and I do say that at the very least James gave a darn about Snapes sinful ways. I definitely never say (or intend to imply, at least) that James thought Snape was too far gone, or that James was /merely/ trying to protect the innocents that Snape (may or may not have) intended preying on. I definitely do say that James and Sirius based their hatred of Snape mostly on his liking for the magic that was destroying the WW they lived in, and to some degree they, James especially, liked to be seen fighting known Dark Magic to gain the reputation that James wanted as a defender of innocents, and finally I do say for sure that although J/S weren't flat out protecting innocent prey in the schoolground, that they believed, and were justified in believing, that Snape was a dangerous person who could do much harm, and already did attempt on numerous occasions to do harm to them. And I accuse Snape of *being* a Snivellus because he never got chastised for doing it, beyond what Sirius did in revenge (which I suppose was bad enough). Betsy: > I just think > they're probably equally calpable in their enmity. Valky: So do I. > > > >>Valky: > > I don't think it would do Snape any harm to get chewed > > out for his horribleness, > > Betsy Hp: > I think Snape *has* had this happen. Valky: Well yeah and no, I think a lot of readers, including me, haven't seen it to their satisfaction in Snapes pre story redemption. We've only heard second hand, and speculated on it. And besides nothing that he has done or learned before the story makes the slightest point to him about scaring Neville senseless or never allowing Hermione the slightest shred of dignity for anything, or humiliating and provoking Hary about the celebrity status he never asked for and didn't want. he should hear someone tell him like Lily would have told him, that this is what he is, no matter what he thinks he's doing, or thinks he's right about. Valky From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 09:26:13 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:26:13 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141130 > Valky: > > Yeah I think Sirius might have been all but suicidal/homicidal before > he met James, and it's to James credit that he didn't fear someone > with the dark reputation of the Black family a_svirn: And afterwards he discarded suicidal which left only homicidal. Maybe he would have been better off befriending someone else after all? > Valky: > In POA MacGonagall gives us the canon that refutes this statement > Betsy. Nobody thought Peter was anything of a wizard. a_svirn: McGonagall is only *one* person, surely? Besides "everybody" can by disastrously wrong at times. One of the history lessons. Pettigrew certainly was wizard enough to best Sirius and bring the Dark Lord back to power. > > Valky: > James and Sirius most likely protected > him in the beginning. a_svirn: Most likely. And he most likely sucked up to them. And James most likely enjoyed that. > > > Valky: > If James was picking on Snape because of his looks and isolation, then > what meaning does "Snape was neck deep in Dark Arts and James always > hated the Dark Arts" have, except to argue point blank that Sirius and > Lupin are a pair of liars. > > a_svirn: To pick on someone simply because they like something you don't is just as bad as picking on them because of their looks and loneliness. Especially since it was Snape's looks and loneliness, rather than his research interests that got publicly ridiculed. As for telling lies, Lupin is adept in that. He has lied outright and by omission his life throughout. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 09:46:52 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:46:52 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141131 > Nora wrote: > Upthread someone else asked about Obliviate, so now I think I have > what could be used to make a distinction, although I'm not sure I buy > it. It's the classic difference between necessary and sufficient; or > another angle on the same idea is whether it has any other > purpose/use. Really? Well, then, Imperius can be used for good uses too. In fact, even Aveda Kedavra can be used for good uses, depends on what you define as "good". a_svirn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 4 10:47:00 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:47:00 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: a_svirn: > Really? Well, then, Imperius can be used for good uses too. In fact, > even Aveda Kedavra can be used for good uses, depends on what you > define as "good". Geoff: I'd be interested for you to expand on that observation.... Taking Imperius as an example, I can't see that the ability to force a person to do what /you/ want is a worthy talent. From hells456 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 4 11:36:20 2005 From: hells456 at yahoo.co.uk (hells) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:36:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051004113620.1217.qmail@web26315.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141133 Making Geoff Bannister wrote: Geoff: I'd be interested for you to expand on that observation.... Taking Imperius as an example, I can't see that the ability to force a person to do what /you/ want is a worthy talent. Hells: Making a child who is about to run into a road stand still. Making a Death Eater who is about to AK someone lower his wand. Imperius would always be a last resort, but its uses in an emergency can be for a good end result. --------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 12:35:04 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:35:04 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141134 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > >> Nora wrote: >> Upthread someone else asked about Obliviate, so now I think I have >> what could be used to make a distinction, although I'm not sure I >> buy it. It's the classic difference between necessary and >> sufficient; or another angle on the same idea is whether it has >> any other purpose/use. > > Really? Well, then, Imperius can be used for good uses too. In fact, > even Aveda Kedavra can be used for good uses, depends on what you > define as "good". Not if you combine the question of necessarily/sufficient/use with the problem of the violation of subjectivity, mentioned upthread. AK and Imperius always violate a person's right to be himself, necessarily (and sufficiently, to boot); I argue that this, in the world of the Potterverse, violates the condition of 'good'. It ain't a deeply relativistic world, I think. I assumed that these later conditions were being stacked onto the earlier ones, as that was the problem we were thinking about. -Nora runs off to begin the day From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 13:09:18 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:09:18 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141136 Nora wrote: > >>> > Not if you combine the question of necessarily/sufficient/use with > the problem of the violation of subjectivity, mentioned upthread. AK > and Imperius always violate a person's right to be himself, > necessarily (and sufficiently, to boot); I argue that this, in the > world of the Potterverse, violates the condition of 'good'. It ain't > a deeply relativistic world, I think. I assumed that these later > conditions were being stacked onto the earlier ones, as that was the > problem we were thinking about. Obliviate violates one's subjectivity even more than Imperius. It robs one not only of one's will, but of one's identity. If you've been subjected to the memory-modifying charm, how can you be sure that you are what you think you are? a_svirn From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 13:47:53 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:47:53 -0000 Subject: Emmeline: As dead as we think? (was Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141137 > > Alla: (quoting HBP) > > "The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him > > on the Order. It led, as perhaps, you have guessed, to the recent > > capture and murder of Emeline Vance and it certainly helped dispose > > of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him > > off." - HBP, p.30. Brothergib responded (with snipping on my part): > Which also leads me to believe that his assistance in the capture and > murder of Emmeline Vance, was probably also not the original > intention of his actions. Ginger: Since I have the quote (thanks, Alla) and the leadin (thanks, Brothergib), please allow me to go on about something that has been on my brain. Is Emmeline really dead? Snape says he gave LV the info needed for her capture and kill. Dumbledore said (in the US edition) that the Order can hide people and fake deaths (paraphrase). Here's my scenario. I admit it is pulling at straws, but it may make sense. Emmeline is a known order member. Snape is LV's spy on the order. Snape has to prove himself to his master. Suppose that LV is demanding a sure sign of Snape's worthiness as a spy. He tells Snape to bring about the death of an order member. Snape reports back to the order. Emmeline volunteers to play dead. She moves into a flat near the PM's home. Snape reports to LV that an order member lives near the Minister of Muggles, and that she would make an excellent target, not only to get rid of an order member, but to scare the Muggles. LV agrees. Now, LV isn't going to just send Snape off and tell him to kill her. No, LV does have his doubts. So either he sends a DE who is secretly an order member (Blondie?), or Snape modifies the memory of the one who is sent with him. Personally, I prefer the former, but either will do. They come back and report that the deed is done. A little draught of living death, a few mourning next of kin, a nice service, and Thor's your uncle. It makes the Muggle papers, and Snape is back in LV's good graces. All Emmy has to do is stay out of sight. Heck, a little Polyjuice, and Emmeline's your uncle. All we need now is an acronym.....VIVA LAS VEGAS Vance Is Very Alive- Leaving A Skeptical Voldy Extra Gullible About Snape. Oh, gosh, my second actual theory with an acronym. Ginger, who has friends who just named their new baby Emmaline. Mental note to self: Ask if they are Potter fans. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 4 14:58:24 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:58:24 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: <20051004113620.1217.qmail@web26315.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, hells wrote: > Making > > Geoff Bannister wrote: > Geoff: > I'd be interested for you to expand on that observation.... > > Taking Imperius as an example, I can't see that the ability to force a > person to do what /you/ want is a worthy talent. > > Hells: > > Making a child who is about to run into a road stand still. > > Making a Death Eater who is about to AK someone lower his wand. > Geoff: My take on this is that you would have to first cast an Imperius spell and then give an instruction, which might not allow enough time to stop the action involved because outside the specific orders of an Imperius, the victim would continue doing things normally. I think a quick "Expelliarmus" would deal with the second case and a "Petrificus Totalus" the first. After all, both Neville and Harry have certainly been stopped short in their tracks in this way in the past. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 4 15:00:01 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:00:01 -0000 Subject: Destroying the horcruxes (The cave potion and soul pieces ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141139 > Valky: > It occurs to me that the Diary and the Ring were probably > destroyed in different ways. I deduce that Dumbledore may have > attempted to re-enact to the best of his ability, the way Harry > destroyed the Diary, but he could easily have discounted something > important to the process, something small that Harry did, but he > didn't. An error with the unfortunate consequence of leaving > Dumbledore with no choice but to die sometime in the near future > or give up all hope of defeating Voldemort. I'd call that a 'huge' > mistake, wouldn't you? Jen: From Dumbledore's explanation of the ring and then reading the cave sequence, the protections on the Horcruxes appear to be the dangerous part of the destruction. Harry destroyed the diary effortlessly because there were no protections on it, it was the only horcrux 'intended as a weapon as much as a safeguard' to lure someone into using it (Horcrux chapter). Dumbledore attributed his blackened hand to a 'terrible curse' upon the ring, and the later destruction of the horcrux back at Hogwarts seemed to have no particular ill effect on Dumbledore. Harry just noticed the ring sitting on the table with a crack in it, after the withered hand incident. Now, what the 'terrible curse' was we have to imagine, but it must have been as destructive as the potion/water. So Snape saved Dumbledore from the terrible curse, but was unable to get to him quickly enough after the potion. I think the moment Dumbledore chose to freeze Harry, losing his wand, was the point of no return for him. Valky(responding to J.'s idea the potion could actually possess the drinker): > Ahh I understand know, but this IMO is kin to saying the > Locket was not the Horcrux, the potion was. I am absolutely > certain that noone (not even Voldemort) Voldemort can possess > without using the soul. Jen: JKR could make a potion do anything she wants it to do! I was imagining somehow Voldemort could place an essence of himself in the potion, that it wasn't the horcrux doing the possessing since there wasn't even a real horcrux in the bowl, rather as the ring had a curse upon it, the potion was the curse of possession protecting the supposed horcrux. Like you said though, can that happen without a soul? "Only if he poured some soul in the bowl" said Dr. Suess . Oh well, if the potion doesn't possess (although I'm still rather attached to the idea) there's still time to come up with new ideas! Lipa: > This is fairly similar to what I have been thinking. > Dumbledore was asking to be killed, quickly. > My guess is that the curse from the ring and/or the > potion/water combination from the cave were finishing him > in a horrible way, dehumanizing him (Inferi, Dementors, > Ghosts, ... come to mind) > and only timely death could save him from destiny > which he considered worse than death. Jen: Welcome, Lipa, this is a good group with many different views to choose from! You know, it suddenly struck me how *adventurous* (rash?) Dumbledore was in HBP, attempting to get past the ring protections alone and paying dearly for it, then drinking a potion he doesn't know the effects of. Guess he really does trust Severus Snape! At least he expects Snape will always be around to put the pieces back together. I'm almost convinced that was what the fight in the forest was about, Dumbeldore becoming slightly obsessed with the horcrux hunt & Snape not wanting to continue to patch him up. It's one of several possibilties, anyway. About the potion/water. I like the idea Voldemort formed the potion to be an information device and the water to be the actual death agent. This would be a very sinister thing to do on Voldemort's part, using the potion to find out who was penetrating his defenses and why, then forcing the person to drink the actual quick-acting poison. It's overkill, but then Lord Voldemort does like his drama! That might explain why Dumbledore was dying so slowly since Harry only dribbled a bit on his lips and he didn't swallow it. I'm not sure the water would turn someone into an Inferi b/c we have a mechanism for how that happens. And the ghosts, we know what causes a person to become a ghost as well. I *guess* we have an origin for the Dementors, seeing as they breed? If they can be created though, I'd expect it was the potion since Dumbledore's words might be interpreted as an extreme dementor experience--he certainly seemed very frightened and appeared unable to use magic to ward off whatever was happening. Jen From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 15:24:04 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:24:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40510040824x54ca3a58q34020c32b4bb3db2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141140 Kemper wrote: Sectumserpra (cut always?) wasn't created to shred paper, it was created with the intention of hurting/maiming another human being, and that is what makes it Dark. >> Nora responded: >> Upthread someone else asked about Obliviate, so now I think I have >> what could be used to make a distinction, although I'm not sure I >> buy it. It's the classic difference between necessary and >> sufficient; or another angle on the same idea is whether it has >> any other purpose/use. > a_svirn countered: > Really? Well, then, Imperius can be used for good uses too. In fact, > even Aveda Kedavra can be used for good uses, depends on what you > define as "good". Nora then replied: Not if you combine the question of necessarily/sufficient/use with the problem of the violation of subjectivity, mentioned upthread. AK and Imperius always violate a person's right to be himself, necessarily (and sufficiently, to boot); I argue that this, in the world of the Potterverse, violates the condition of 'good'. Hells replied to Geoff: (replies to a way which at least Imperios can be used for good in an emergency) Making a child who is about to run into a road stand still. Making a Death Eater who is about to AK someone lower his wand. Kemper now: a_svirn and Hells suggest that Dark (Morally Wrong in the RR)can be used for the Morally Right reasons. Saving people was used as an example by Hells. Instead of Imperio-ing child running into road, what about Accio-ing child to your loving arms? It doesn't violate the child and still allows the child to trust the caretaker. Instead of Imperio-ing the DE, what about Petrificus Totalus-ing his/her ass? It can be done nvrb-ly as illustrated by DD on the tower thereby surprising the would-be AK-er. This would save the would-be AK victim while keeping the moral high ground... not sliding down the slippery slope into the Dark. Many thought that Voldemort had it right, until he started showing his true colors. (Don't have my books near, but if someone has book and page #, I think it was Sirius or Lupin) I think of the Dark Magic as a cigarette. For many people smoking a cigarette for the first time makes it infinitely easier to smoke a cigarette the next time. The lungs, once Pure, Darken. Sure, not much at first but in time. Harry has smoked two cigarettes. He didn't seem to cough much with Crucio, though with Sectumsempra he seemed to find it difficult to breath. Which is good, because Harry wanted to hurt Draco. If he didn't, he could have used Expelliarmus, a spell he's quite good at. (Carol, I know the preposition dangles, but it dangles eloquently) I think we've seen Harry last try cigarettes; he doesn't seem to enjoy exhaling the Dark smoke from his Pure lungs. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 15:19:04 2005 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:19:04 -0000 Subject: Frankenstein connections/Chapter Discussions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141141 Hey everyone, I just had a couple of things I wanted to share with the group. In one of my classes I was reading Frankenstein and I came across a couple passages that just shouted Harry Potter to me! The first was just a passing reference, common in literature of this time (early 1800s), to the philosopher's stone... "My dreams were therefore undisturbed by reality; and I entered with the greatest diligence into the search of the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life." The next two were more interesting. One isn't a direct connection it was just a description of Elizabeth's feelings about Justine's innocence (for those who don't know the story, Elizabeth is Frankenstein, the scientist not the monster's, cousin/fiance and Justine is a maid and a friend to their family who is accused of murdering Frankenstein's younger brother when actually the monster had killed him). Once Elizabeth is convinced of Justine's innocence she says to Frankenstein: "'You know not, my dear Victor, how much I am relieved, now that I trust in the innocence of this unfortunate girl. I never could again have known peace, if I had been deceived in my reliance on her. For the moment that I did believe her guilty, I felt an anguish that I could not have long sustained. Now my heart is lightened. The innocent suffers; but she whom I thought amiable and good has not betrayed the trust I reposed in her, and I am consoled.'" Now, how many of your thoughts turned directly to Snape? When I think back to the day after I finished reading Half Blood Prince for the first time, it's amazing how affected I was. I practically cried on my way to work the next morning, thinking about how much of a scum Snape turned out to be and how Dumbledore had so badly misjudged him. I was miserable all morning. Then I came on here and started reading about some of the theories that support Snape's innocence and I immediately felt better, I worked it out in my head and came to my own conclusions. Those conclusions have been discussed to death on here so I'm not gonna lay them out for you, of course it's possible that I'm still mistaken in Snape, but at least I have peace for now! I just thought I'd share this passage from Frankenstein that so accurately described what I went through that day! The last connection that I noticed was interesting in that it mirrored a scene from PS. The scene in Frankenstein happens when Frankenstein is on an island with few inhabitants, attempting to create a female monster as a companion for the original monster: "I felt the silence, although I was hardly conscious of its extreme profundity, until my ear was suddenly arrested by the paddling or oars near the shore, and a person landed close to my house. In a few minutes after, I heard the creaking of my door, as if some one endeavoured to open it softly. I trembled from head to foot; I felt a presentiment of who it was, and wished to rouse one of the peasants who dwelt in a cottage not far from mine; but I was overcome by the sensation of helplessness, so often felt in frightful dreams, when you in vain endeavour to fly from an impending danger, and was rooted to the spot. Presently I heard the sound of footsteps along the passage; the door opened, and the wretch whom I dreaded appeared." Now, although the circumstances and many of the details of this scene are different from the one that comes to mind from PS, I couldn't help but picturing this scene much as a picture this other one: "Fice minutes to go. Harry heard something creak outside. He hoped the roof wasn't going to fall in, although he might be warmer if it did. Four minutes to go. Maybe the house in Privet Drive would be so full of letters when they got back that he'd be able to steal one somehow. Three minutes to go. Was that the sea, slapping hard on the rock like that? And (two minutes to go) what was that funny crunching noise? Was the rock crumbling into the sea? One minute to go and he'd be eleven. Thirty seconds... twenty... ten - nine - maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him- three - two - one - BOOM. The whole shack shivered and Harry sat bolt upright, staring at the door. Someone was outside, knocking to come in"(British paper back, pg. 38). I just thought these parallels were interesting, small island, noises outside the house, thought about waking someone up, huge figure appearing at the door... So although I know this doesn't add any theory or anything to the discussion, I just found these passages interesting in their different connections to Harry Potter and wanted to share them with you guys! I also wondered about Chapter Discussions. I thought they would have started for HBP by now, but I haven't seen any yet, it is possible that I've missed any that have happened so far. So if the list elves could maybe let us know when we'll be starting those? Thanks for reading if you made it this far! From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 15:46:08 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:46:08 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (Was: Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > Obliviate violates one's subjectivity even more than Imperius. It > robs one not only of one's will, but of one's identity. If you've > been subjected to the memory-modifying charm, how can you be sure > that you are what you think you are? Hence enters in the case of degrees. I'd first challenge (on general grounds, as well as in the Potterverse) the idea that memory is *the* component of identity or even identical with identity, but that's more a problem for a philosophy list, and not an area for here. [It does seem that, in the Potterverse, people have a fundamental core to them which is not solely composed of their experiences; it's an essentialist world out there.] But there's another difference as well: Obliviate does something to another person, but it does not set up the caster as a continually dominant figure over another person. Marietta is Obliviated to forget what she saw in the office, but is then let loose: something is done to her, but it's not quite the same amount of 'use', it doesn't involve the same kind of domination. I'm not saying that Obliviate isn't ethically skating a very, very fine line. I'm just looking for distinctions that can be made. If you look for mass similarities, you'll find them. It's the same thing with differences. -Nora thinks these days about how communication has actually damaged, instead of reinforced, the idea that the author is dead (not that she ever thought the author was dead...) From crypticamoeba at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 14:57:16 2005 From: crypticamoeba at gmail.com (crypticamoeba) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:57:16 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141143 truthbeauty1 wrote: I was reading C.O.S. the other day and I came across something that I found to be odd. how did George know the moster had fangs? I believe that the twins were refering to the snake created by Draco Malfoy during the dueling club demostration and the fact that Harry is a parseltongue. The twins didn't know about Slytherin's pet! Crypticamoeba From agdisney at msn.com Tue Oct 4 15:10:33 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:10:33 -0000 Subject: Detention Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141144 I'm not sure where I'm going with this but... For Harry's detention after Snape found out that Harry was using his potions book, Snape has Harry re-writing old files on past students. Doesn't it seem as if Snape is at work again at trying to *help* Harry out. There must be something of importance in those files, besides finding out that his father wasn't the best behaved student at Hogwarts, that Snape wants Harry to find out. Could there be some hint on a hidden horcrux, or a direction for Harry to follow - a certain person or a certain reason that someone was written up for and is now what Harry is re-writing. Just something that keeps coming to my mind - or whats left of it. hp & disney fan From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 4 16:17:27 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:17:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141145 meltowne: PJ,I think you might have it backwards - any CRIME worthy of having your wand snapped is alsp grounds for expulsion. Hogwarts is not the only school, so expulsion in some cases could mean a transfer to Durmstrang. PJ replies: Expulsion is always mentioned first with the wand snapping (sounding like) an extention of that action but it could very well be a chicken/egg thing. I don't believe a person facing expulsion from one school has the option of enrolling in another. If that were the case wouldn't Dumbledore have gotten Hagrid (who he knew to be innocent) into Durmstrang before the MoM snapped his wand? The MoM doesn't just regulate Hogwarts but the entire wizarding world. Muggle born wizards who refuse to go to Hogwarts (or one of the other schools) never get a wand and never get training in wizardry. Yes they may be able to do magic but since they're not trained to channel it I strongly suspect most can only use a limited measure of their true potential (our psychics and dowsers maybe?). Perhaps the Tom Riddles of the Muggle world either end up on death row or as Dictators of one country or other. :-) PJ From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 4 16:18:38 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:18:38 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: <700201d40510040824x54ca3a58q34020c32b4bb3db2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141146 Kemper: > I think of the Dark Magic as a cigarette. For many people smoking a > cigarette for the first time makes it infinitely easier to smoke a > cigarette the next time. The lungs, once Pure, Darken. Sure, not > much at first but in time. > Harry has smoked two cigarettes. He didn't seem to cough much with > Crucio, though with Sectumsempra he seemed to find it difficult to > breath. Which is good, because Harry wanted to hurt Draco. If he > didn't, he could have used Expelliarmus, a spell he's quite good > at. (Carol, I know the preposition > dangles, but it dangles eloquently) I think we've seen Harry last > try cigarettes; he doesn't seem to enjoy exhaling the Dark smoke > from his Pure lungs. Jen: This is a good analogy. Well, Harry has smoked several cigarettes now, or at least tried to, throwing his nonverbal spells at Snapey. Thank goodness Snape cares enough about Harry's soul enough to try to stop him! ;) Cause I agree dark magic is what tarnishes a soul, and why Dumbeldore goes on about Harry's soul--Harry's never been tempted to follow that path. Yet. He needs to shape up though, and shake that desire to hurt or kill Snape. Intention counts in magic, after all. jen From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 4 16:53:35 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:53:35 -0000 Subject: Detention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141147 "agdisney" > I'm not sure where I'm going with this but... > For Harry's detention after Snape found out that Harry was using his > potions book, Snape has Harry re-writing old files on past students. > Doesn't it seem as if Snape is at work again at trying to *help* > Harry > out. Potioncat: IMHO most of Snape's detentions/punishments have a hidden purpose. In this case the very first offense Harry re-writes is an "illegal hex" that his father used. The hex made the victim's head swell to twice its size. Very appropriate to Harry's misdeed, and funny too, given that Snape has accused the Potters of having "swollen heads". If I remember correctly, Snape always stays with him during detention, which hasn't always been the case before. It's been suggested that Snape was using Legilimency during this time, but I don't know if canon gives any hints in that direction. From rh64643 at appstate.edu Tue Oct 4 17:16:55 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:16:55 -0000 Subject: The Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141148 truthbeauty1 wrote: > I was reading C.O.S. the other day and I came across something > that I found to be odd. how did George know the moster had > fangs? Crypticamoeba: > I believe that the twins were refering to the snake created by > Draco Malfoy during the dueling club demostration and the fact > that Harry is a parseltongue. > > The twins didn't know about Slytherin's pet! truthbeauty1 again I dont think I agree with you here. This comment is made after Hermione asks about the Chamber in Prof. Binns class, and although he claims it is a myth he does say,"That is believed to be some sort of monster, which the Heir of Slytherin alone can control." (C.O.S Chapter 9, pg.151 U.S edition) Since the twins are making fun of the fact that Harry is supposed to be the Heir of Slytherin, I believe they would be making an alusion to this moster, not the snake in the dueling club which had no connection to the Chamber. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 17:59:11 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:59:11 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (Was: Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141149 > Nora: > Hence enters in the case of degrees. I'd first challenge (on general > grounds, as well as in the Potterverse) the idea that memory is *the* > component of identity or even identical with identity, a_svirn: Please do! Suppose Harry's memories about his every encounter with Voldemort are wiped out, would he be the same person? Suppose his memory about being a wizard is wiped out? Would it not rob him of his identity? Nora: But there's another difference as > well: Obliviate does something to another person, but it does not set > up the caster as a continually dominant figure over another person. > Marietta is Obliviated to forget what she saw in the office, but is > then let loose: something is done to her, but it's not quite the same > amount of 'use', it doesn't involve the same kind of domination. > a_svirn: I can't imagine what can put you in more dominant position than messing with other person's mind. Besides, your notion of "continuity" it's very arbitrary. Yes Marietta was "let loose" after she'd been Obliviated, but she could have been let loose after quick Imperius too. Of course Obliviate is more reliable, but does not make it any better from the ethics point of view. > -Nora thinks these days about how communication has actually damaged, > instead of reinforced, the idea that the author is dead (not that she > ever thought the author was dead...) I thought that idea has been buried by now. Together with its author. a_svirn From manawydan at ntlworld.com Tue Oct 4 18:09:48 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 19:09:48 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts References: <1128375263.5868.44907.m4@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001301c5c90e$d06f3000$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 141150 Carol wrote > breaking wizarding law. At one point in CoS, Hagrid threatens Draco > Malfoy with expulsion is he refuses to take his detention. I don't > think we have any evidence that his wand would have been broken in > that instance. (Using the Imperius Curse and attempting murder is > another matter. He'll receive a lot worse than expulsion if he's caught.) On her website, JKR is explicit that not all WW children attend Hogwarts (quote) There is no obligation to take up the place, however; a family might not want their child to attend Hogwarts.(unquote) As this is so, it would follow that you can be an adult wizard (and buy a wand) even though you haven't completed Hogwarts (or even been there in the first place). I'd agree that someone who is expelled or leaves wouldn't necessarily lose their wand unless there was a breach of wizarding law/ hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 4 18:33:26 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:33:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141151 Carol >But I'm not talking about child "criminals" like teen!Hagrid and >Harry). I'm talking about expulsion for violating school rules. If, >for example, Ron and Harry had been expelled for arriving at Hogwarts >in the flying Ford Anglia, would their wands have been taken away and >broken? (r maybe that's not a good example, since they were also >breaking wizarding law. We've seen many acts of school rules being seriously violated and the most punishment handed out in Dumbledore's time has been a long detention. We know from Molly and Filch that the punishment used to be whippings and hanging by thumbs (or was it toes?), but still, no expulsions. I believe that points squarely to the idea that to be expelled from Hogwarts rather than just disciplined you must break *wizarding* law. If that's true then it follows every time someone is expelled their wands are snapped. Carol: >In any case, to return to your original point--that Snape seems to >want Harry wandering around the WW wandless. If so, it's odd that he's >tried so often to *prevent* Harry from breaking the rules (e.g., going >to Hogsmeade without permission) and that he has twice had good reason >to expel him: When HRH knocked him against the cave wall with an >Expelliarmus, he (mis)informed Fudge that they were confunded and when >Harry performed Sectumsempra on Draco, he gave him a series of >detentions rather than expelling him. In all other instances, he knew >full well that the expulsion of a Gryffindor was not within his authority. If Harry were to get expelled for using Sectumsempra on Draco then Draco also would've had to be expelled for using (or attempting) Crucio on Harry. Snapes UV wouldn't have allowed that. Also, what other excuse could Snape's pride handle other than "Confunded" when he's knocked on his butt by 3 of his students? >Carol, finding it a bit odd that the examples she rebutted were >snipped and then re-cited as new evidence You mentioned "someone said" and since I was that "someone" I responded. I didn't asnwer the rest of your post because I didn't want to get into the discussion of whether Snape singled Harry out the first day of class. I'm not sure I follow how my post re-cited yours at all. PJ From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 4 20:54:48 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:54:48 -0000 Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > This is a good analogy. Well, Harry has smoked several cigarettes > now, or at least tried to, throwing his nonverbal spells at Snapey. > Thank goodness Snape cares enough about Harry's soul enough to try to > stop him! ;) Cause I agree dark magic is what tarnishes a soul, and > why Dumbeldore goes on about Harry's soul--Harry's never been tempted > to follow that path. Yet. He needs to shape up though, and shake that > desire to hurt or kill Snape. Intention counts in magic, after all. > Does it? Does intention count in magic? If it does, HOW does it matter? I think that is a very important question to which we have no really clear answer. First of all, I'm not sure if Tempted!Harry is the direction JKR is going. It sounds a LOT like Star Wars cross-contamination. I'm not at all sure that JKR views the Dark Arts in the same way Lucas portrayed the Dark Side. Perhaps she does, it would give support to the Addicted! Snape hypothesis, but that of course raises all sorts of questions about why Dumbledore would imperil an addicted Snape by giving him the DADA job. Is Harry in serious moral danger? I don't know. If he were a Jedi, he would be. But he's not a Jedi, and this isn't long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, and I'm not at all sure that what we have seen in him and his attitudes/actions constitutes being in mortal peril of Darkness in JKR's world. Let us look to the figure who, by common consensus, is viewed as the loadstone of Light Magic in the Potterverse, Dumbledore. DD shows no sign of thinking that Harry is on the road to darkness. Far from it, he is serenely confident that Harry is not in danger of such a fall. We don't know if he is aware of Harry's attempted crucio at the MoM. If he is, however, he seems not to be at all troubled by it. Nor does he say anything to Harry regarding the Sectumsempra episode. One would think that if he felt Harry was in any danger this would alarm him, but his attitude to Harry does not change at all, and he appears content to let the episode die out without so much as a mention. And far from appearing alarmed at Harry's hatred of Snape before the final revelation about Snape and Harry's parents, he seems to be at most sadly resigned to it. Now, he DOES appear alarmed by the final revelation, but we have no idea why, and I don't think there is warrant to say he's worried that this will push Harry over the edge into some abyss. There are other more mundane, but still critical, problems that could arise from the revelation -- such as shattering the grudging trust in Snape by the other members of the Order should it get out. This of course leads very quickly to the whole question of the Unforgiveables. Who makes them Unforgiveable? Is it because of the extreme intention to harm? Is it because they require hatred to cast? Or is it just because they tend to cause deep and lasting harm to another person, whether one defines this as violation of subjectivity a la nrenka or some other way? I don't think they can require hatred. I'd be hard-pressed to argue that Wormtail hated Cedric Diggory, for instance, or that Bellatrix hated the rabbit she AK'd (if it was, indeed, an AK she used). But they might very well require intent. I think it is quite clear that Wormtail intended to kill Diggory and Bellatrix intended to kill the rabbit. If intent is indeed the essence of unforgiveability, I suppose Harry might have something to worry about -- although DD's curious serenity on the question makes me doubt it. Besides, if intent is the essence, then Snape is in even worse trouble than Harry, as his intent to kill DD succeeded (and I don't buy for one minute any kind of contrived scenario about an AK that wasn't really an AK.) But if intent is the road to darkness, then why is an AK any worse than petrifying someone and dropping them out a window? For that matter, if intent is the road to darkness, then how is Harry supposed to deal with Voldy and the DEs? As far as I can determine, he intends to kill the man, and DD, loadstone of Light Magic, seems perfectly happy with that. So, in sum, I have my doubts as to whether Tempted!Harry is really a theme JKR is interested in exploring, at least in the way many people seem to expect. Maybe she is, but if so then we really need to know a lot more about the Dark Arts, specifically what makes them dark and what they do to those that practice them. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 21:35:32 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:35:32 -0000 Subject: Wand breaking was Harry's bias again, several posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141154 Carol earlier: > > In any case, to return to your original point--that Snape seems to want Harry wandering around the WW wandless. If so, it's odd that he's tried so often to *prevent* Harry from breaking the rules (e.g., going to Hogsmeade without permission) and that he has twice had good reason to expel him: When HRH knocked him against the cave wall with an Expelliarmus, he (mis)informed Fudge that they were confunded > Geoff responded: > Just for clarity, is the incident to which you are actually referring when /Harry/ used an Expelliarmus charm on Snape in the /Shrieking Shack/ in COS? Carol answerss: It wasn't just Harry. It was all three of them (HRH): "Before Snape could take even one step toward him, he [Harry} had raised his wand. "'*Expelliarmus!*' he yelled--except that his wasn't the only voice that shouted. There was a blast that made the door rattle on its hinges; Snape was lifted off his feet and blasted into the wall. . . . "Harry looked around. Both Ron and Hermione had tried to disarm Snape at exactly the same moment. . . . "'We attacked a teacher. . . We attacked a teacher. . .' Hermione whimpered, staring at the lifeless Snape with frightened eyes. 'Oh, we're gong to be in so much trouble--'"(PoA Am. ed. 361-62). So, yes, that's the passage I was referring to. It was all three, not just Harry, who did it, and Snape tells Fudge that all three were confunded (386). He could have had all three expelled, but instead he covers up for them. Carol From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Oct 4 23:34:50 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 23:34:50 -0000 Subject: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jaja Redor wrote: > > > > > > ... I just have few comments about the so-called Side-Along > > apparition ... > > > > ... the rest of the DE's know LV wanted Harry for himself, why don't > > they just stalk Harry when he's in Hogsmead, grab him then > > disapparate? I mean, Draco could just give them info about when's > > the next Hogsmead visit right? > > ... > > And why make such a big to-do and go on for 5 pages about flying to Grimmauld Place on broomsticks in the beginning of OoP, when Harry could just have grabbed someone's arm and apparated that way? I suspect it's a flint and that JKR just hadn't invented the idea yet. Allie From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 00:15:18 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:15:18 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > a_svirn: > > Really? Well, then, Imperius can be used for good uses too. In fact, > > even Aveda Kedavra can be used for good uses, depends on what you > > define as "good". > > Geoff: > I'd be interested for you to expand on that observation.... > > Taking Imperius as an example, I can't see that the ability to force a > person to do what /you/ want is a worthy talent. While Crucio or the killing curse are probably more purely dark, I can see lots of uses for the imperious curse. how about the use of the curse in mental health work, i.e. stop cutting yourself or stop starving yourself. I would think that you could use the curse to condition people away from bad habits or towards good habits pretty easily. While the magical world may not have the psychological understanding to fully use the imperious curse, I bet an interprising muggle could think of all sorts of benign uses for it. phoenixgod2000 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 00:24:42 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:24:42 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141157 Hells provided possible examples of a justifiable Imperius Curse: > > > > Making a child who is about to run into a road stand still. > > > > Making a Death Eater who is about to AK someone lower his wand. > > > Geoff responded: > My take on this is that you would have to first cast an Imperius > spell and then give an instruction, which might not allow enough time > to stop the action involved because outside the specific orders of an > Imperius, the victim would continue doing things normally. > > I think a quick "Expelliarmus" would deal with the second case and > a "Petrificus Totalus" the first. After all, both Neville and Harry > have certainly been stopped short in their tracks in this way in the > past. Carol adds: I agree with Geoff, but I think there's more to it than neutral spells that can accomplish the same effect. The Imperius Curse is labeled Unforgiveable and a single Imperio means a life sentence in Azkaban. In other words, the Imperius Curse is dark and dangerous. Not only does it violate the victim's subjectivity (as Nora and others have pointed out), making one person subject to the will of another, a successful Imperio almost certainly requires the desire of one person to dominate another (which IMO is why Crouch!Moody so easily Imperios the students in Harry's class and possibly all the kids in the school from the fourth year up--he has been under the Imperius Curse himself for eleven years and his desire to control others as he himself was controlled leads to his mastery of the curse). Not only is the will to control others evil in itself, it can be terribly abused, as it was in VW1 when Mulciber, the Imperius expert, "forced countless people to do horrific things" (as Karkaroff says in the Pensieve scene in GoF, Am. ed. 590). It's used in HBP to make the harmless Madam Rosmerta into an accessory to (attempted murder) and to make a nine-year-old boy attempt to murder his grandparents. For these reasons (the necessary desire to control other people and the abuse to which the curse is susceptible), it is not taught at Hogwarts even to seventh years and it is punishable by the same sentence as Crucio and Avada Kedavra. I also think that the use of Imperio is addictive and leads to the ruthless desire to dominate others. Look what happened to the Crouches. Granted, a number of spells (notably "Obliviate!") are also subject to abuse, but they also have other uses (the MoM protecting itself from notice by Muggles or protecting Muggles from their own traumatic memories). I'm not justifying the use of "Obliviate," which I personally think is as much a violation of subjectivity as Imperio; I'm just saying that there are excellent reasons why Imperio, like Crucio, should never be used. As Geoff says, there are other spells that can be used when it's necessary to stop someone from doing something dangerous to himself or others, spells that don't involve the subjecting of another person to the wizard's will through the violation of his mind. Carol From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Wed Oct 5 00:40:53 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:40:53 -0000 Subject: Destroying the horcruxes (The cave potion and soul pieces ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141158 > Lipa: > > This is fairly similar to what I have been thinking. > > Dumbledore was asking to be killed, quickly. > > My guess is that the curse from the ring and/or the > > potion/water combination from the cave were finishing him > > in a horrible way, dehumanizing him (Inferi, Dementors, > > Ghosts, ... come to mind) > > and only timely death could save him from destiny > > which he considered worse than death. >Jen: You know, it suddenly struck me how *adventurous* (rash?) Dumbledore > was in HBP, attempting to get past the ring protections alone and > paying dearly for it, then drinking a potion he doesn't know the > effects of. Guess he really does trust Severus Snape! At least he > expects Snape will always be around to put the pieces back together. > I'm almost convinced that was what the fight in the forest was > about, Dumbeldore becoming slightly obsessed with the horcrux hunt & > Snape not wanting to continue to patch him up. It's one of several > possibilties, anyway. CH3ed: Hi, I agree with Lipa that Dumbledore was 'pleading' for Snape to kill him on the Astronomy Tower. It is totally out of character for Dumbledore to plead for his own life. Even when he was suffering terribly in drinking the horcrux potion in the cave he was pleading to be punished in the place of others he was seeing or remembering in his hallucinated state. I also speculate that the argument between Snape and Dumbledore in the forest concerned a pre-arranged pact that if such situation arises Snape would kill Dumbledore to save Malfoy from having to murder Dumbledore or be killed himself by Voldemort or his DE, and Snape didn't want to do it. Something similar to what Dumbledore made Harry promised to do before they went looking for the horcrux in the cave. An interesting irony.... had the potion killed Dumbledore in the cave, Harry would have been the person who forced death on him... the position Snape is now in. I think Snape has turned from Voldemort forever. He has worked under both Voldemort and Dumbledore, and it is not hard to imagine that Dumbledore is a much better master. For one, he trusted Snape loudly, vouching for him openly on many occasions at the cost of inviting others to doubt Dumbledore's judgement. Trust is not something Snape is used to get from others. Voldemort would never have done that for him and Snape knows it. He knows Voldemort enough to know he is not being trusted (as Narcissa believes), but used. I doubt that if Snape is still Voldemort's agent he would have stood up for Dumbledore by showing his DE scar to Fudge at the end of book V. My wild guess (which is quite far-fetched, I admit) is that Snape loved Lily Evans. He wasn't all that sorry that James got killed but he was sorry Lily died... and that adds to the reason why he hated Harry so much(which makes for a very conflicted emotional state. Harry looks like James, whom he hated, but has Lily's eyes, whom he loved secretly). Gosh! If this turns out to be true we might have to have Snape and Percy switch school houses! Ch3ed From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Oct 5 00:53:09 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:53:09 -0000 Subject: Detention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141159 agdisney: > > I'm not sure where I'm going with this but... > > For Harry's detention after Snape found out that > > Harry was using his potions book, Snape has Harry > > re-writing old files on past students. Doesn't it > > seem as if Snape is at work again at trying to *help* Harry out. Potioncat: > IMHO most of Snape's detentions/punishments have a > hidden purpose. In this case the very first offense > Harry re-writes is an "illegal hex" that his father used. houyhnhnm: The offense was a pretty serious one, so the numerous detentions don't really require an explanation, but I agree that they serve more than one purpose. I think it would be neat if Harry remembers some clue uncovered during all those forays into old disciplinary records, but I'm not really expecting it. Snape was trying to *help* Harry out, I think, with another character building lesson of the control-your-emotions-keep-your-mouth-shut- and-your-mind-closed variety. As is usual with Snape's character building lessons, it gets all mixed up with his own grievance collection. Additionally, I think Snape was scared by the scene he discovered in the boy's bathroom. If he hadn't happened upon it (though he showed up in such a timely manner I do wonder if he wasn't keeping Harry and/or Draco under surveillance) Draco could have bled to death. Possibly making Snape's own life forfeit due to the UV. In addition to Draco's safety, there is also the fact that Harry had been suspecting Draco of being up to something all year and trying to bring it out into the open. Snape has plenty of experience with Harry's ability to expose wrong-doers when the adults are dragging their feet. In this case, the adults are dragging their feet deliberately. The very last thing Snape would want would be for Draco's plot to be forced out into the open bringing the whole situation to the crisis point. I think the reason for keeping Harry in his office every Saturday, besides being a wholly suitable punishment for a very serious offense, was so Snape could keep an eye on Harry (and still get his grades out). Every hour spent in Snape's office was one less that Harry could be tailing Draco, duelling in bathrooms, and generally working to bring about the end Snape was trying desperately to stave off. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 03:50:14 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 20:50:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40510042050o38b9879cxfd282932f455ed34@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141160 Kemper responding to Lupinlore's snipped post below: Intention. We have: 1. The intention of the Spell designed. 2. The intention of the Caster of a spell. So the AK. The intention of this spell is inherently Dark. It was created to kill. The Petrificus Totalus (PT). The intention is not-Dark and not-Light. But if the intention of the Caster of the spell is to use it and then toss the hexed out the window, then the Casters intention is Dark. Either way killing would likely lead to a life term in Azkaban not because a particular curse was used but because someone was murdered. AK is to Sniper Riffle as PT is to cement. Not sure if its true or not but Modern Myth suggests gangsters/mobsters have used cement to harden around someone's feet then drop this someone into water that is at least higher than the victim's nose. Again, using either to kill someone would probably have the same sentences. Why is the AK Unforgivable? Because the Wizarding society thinks so. Why not Obliverate as Unforgivable? Because the Wizarding World uses it on Muggles who observe them and thus don't want considerate Unforgivable... or Dark. Though on another thread it is suggested that it is Dark, and I tend to agree. As far as Hate not being needed to AK, I agree with Lupinlore. But I do think it is the desire to kill (the intention to kill) that is needed. Let's look at Harry's Crucio against Bella. It didn't work because Harry lacked the true intention of the spell. He wanted Bella to hurt, true, but I suspect he wanted her to hurt like he was hurting at that moment: he wanted her to suffer emotional pain rather than physical. He intended her to hurt emotionally, but hadn't the proper spell. If he had cast curse that caused emotional trauma, Emoto Sufferum, then I'm sure Bella would be an emotional wreck. This is all speculation of course... -Kemper > Jen responded to Kemper's analogy: > This is a good analogy. Well, Harry has smoked several cigarettes > now, or at least tried to, throwing his nonverbal spells at Snapey. > Thank goodness Snape cares enough about Harry's soul enough to try to > stop him! ;) Cause I agree dark magic is what tarnishes a soul, and > why Dumbeldore goes on about Harry's soul--Harry's never been tempted > to follow that path. Yet. He needs to shape up though, and shake that > desire to hurt or kill Snape. Intention counts in magic, after all. > Does it? Does intention count in magic? If it does, HOW does it matter? I think that is a very important question to which we have no really clear answer. ...snip... This of course leads very quickly to the whole question of the Unforgiveables. Who makes them Unforgiveable? Is it because of the extreme intention to harm? Is it because they require hatred to cast? Or is it just because they tend to cause deep and lasting harm to another person, whether one defines this as violation of subjectivity a la nrenka or some other way? I don't think they can require hatred. I'd be hard-pressed to argue that Wormtail hated Cedric Diggory, for instance, or that Bellatrix hated the rabbit she AK'd (if it was, indeed, an AK she used). But they might very well require intent. I think it is quite clear that Wormtail intended to kill Diggory and Bellatrix intended to kill the rabbit. If intent is indeed the essence of unforgiveability, I suppose Harry might have something to worry about -- although DD's curious serenity on the question makes me doubt it. Besides, if intent is the essence, then Snape is in even worse trouble than Harry, as his intent to kill DD succeeded (and I don't buy for one minute any kind of contrived scenario about an AK that wasn't really an AK.) But if intent is the road to darkness, then why is an AK any worse than petrifying someone and dropping them out a window? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 5 04:07:26 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 04:07:26 -0000 Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141161 Lupinlore: > Does it? Does intention count in magic? If it does, HOW does it > matter? I think that is a very important question to which we > have no really clear answer. Jen: A clear answer, no. That would probably be too much to ask until the encyclopedia of the WW comes out. Intention does count, though. "Destination, Determination, Deliberation"--you don't want to end up in Jersey during beginning apparation. Some of the elementary magic, such as 'swish and flick', relied more on the proper spell. By third year we see Riddikulus, when a wizard must bring to life an idea envisioned in the mind. By sixth year, intention is a much larger part of magical training with the focus on nonverbals. Saying the spell over and over in your head is no guarantee the action will happen, it requires a concentrated effort: "Mustering all his powers of concentration, Harry thought, Levi-" (chap. 28, p. 604, Scholastic) If more complex magic requires intentionality, then dark arts must as well. Unfortunately, most of our information about dark magic comes from two rather dubious sources: Crouch Jr. & Bella. I believe JKR meant for them to be reliable sources of information because they're characterized as devoting their lives to dark arts, but other readers don't find them so convincing. Lupinlore: > First of all, I'm not sure if Tempted!Harry is the direction JKR > is going. It sounds a LOT like Star Wars cross-contamination. > I'm not at all sure that JKR views the Dark Arts in the same way > Lucas portrayed the Dark Side. Jen: Whatever JKR intends with the tempation idea, she's the one who put the issue on the table in the Horcrux chapter: "You are protected in short, by your ability to love!" said Dumbledore loudly. "the only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at age eleven..." (p. 511, Scholastic). Why is Dumbledore saying Harry is pure of heart? Because he was never lured to Voldemort's side, never gave into the temptation he endured. Not, 'temptation dangled in front of him which he never noticed and was able to ignore easily', no, but which Harry *endured*. I don't think Dumbledore is pronuoncing him immune, just commenting on the state of his soul at the moment (prior to the Sectumsempra and chase across the grounds, I might add). Lupinlore: > Is Harry in serious moral danger? I don't know. If he were a > Jedi, he would be. But he's not a Jedi, and this isn't long, long > ago in a galaxy far, far away, and I'm not at all sure that what > we have seen in him and his attitudes/actions constitutes being in > mortal peril of Darkness in JKR's world. Jen: I don't get why temptation is only a Star Wars theme! We're in agreement Harry is not the next Anakin, but that doesn't mean temptation won't be a theme in Book 7. So far Harry thinks pretty much like you do, he saw what happened with the Sectumsempra when he used it on Draco and felt remorse, but there he is, still trying to use it on Snape plus a couple of Crucios. I don't think this qualifies as serious moral danger yet, but I do think the more he gives in to hatred, the less that power which saves him from Voldemort will be operational in protecting him. Lupinlore: > Let us look to the figure who, by common consensus, is viewed as > the loadstone of Light Magic in the Potterverse, Dumbledore. DD > shows no sign of thinking that Harry is on the road to darkness. > Far from it, he is serenely confident that Harry is not in danger > of such a fall. We don't know if he is aware of Harry's attempted > crucio at the MoM. If he is, however, he seems not to be at all > troubled by it. Nor does he say anything to Harry regarding the > Sectumsempra episode. Jen: Funny you should mention this, because *Snape* is the one most aware of Harry's attempts at dark magic. Whether anyone knew about the incident in the MOM with Bella is pretty tough to say. Harry, at least, never told anyone. The Sectumsempra I feel certain Dumbledore didn't know about. Hermione, our expositional mouthpiece, told Harry Snape wouldn't have wanted Dumbledore to know about the potion book. And Dumbledore was gone for the chase across the grounds, when Harry really started to get in the groove with his new, cool spells! That Snape is being set up to address this issue, rather than Dumbledore, is a very good choice in my book. JKR has been working toward a parallel between Snape and Harry since the Pensieve incident in OOTP, and she cemented their similarities by allowing Harry and Ron to relate to the HBP as a young guy much like themselves. Dumbledore, too 'noble' to use any type of dark magic, is out of Harry's league on this one. Much better to learn this from a person who allowed hatred, resentment and the study of dark arts to ruin what may have been a promising life at one time. (I snipped the part about Unforgiveables because there are some great debates in the past about this, and I'm hoping someone else will provide links .) Lupinlore: > For that matter, if intent is the road to darkness, then how is > Harry supposed to deal with Voldy and the DEs? As far as I can > determine, he intends to kill the man, and DD, loadstone of Light > Magic, seems perfectly happy with that. Jen: Because Dumbledore knows Harry won't murder Voldemort. There are options for 'vanquishing' Voldemort which don't require murder. >From my reading, Dumbledore seems convinced Harry needs no particular magical power to defeat Voldemort, which means he's naturally suited for the job. Either by being willing to sacrifice himself, which he has a proven ability to do, or because Voldemort will make Harry impossible to kill by his own hand with all these weapons he's handing him, or something else entirely. Whatever it is, Harry is capable just the way he is at the moment. Lupinlore: > So, in sum, I have my doubts as to whether Tempted!Harry is really > a theme JKR is interested in exploring, at least in the way many > people seem to expect. Maybe she is, but if so then we really > need to know a lot more about the Dark Arts, specifically what > makes them dark and what they do to those that practice them. Jen: Oh, I certianly hope we'll get more on this issue. I do think JKR was merely building the foundation with Slughorn's 'murder rips the soul' comment; I expect certain subtleties to be fleshed out before the end. Jen, sorry if this posts twice, waited a good 30 minutes but Yahoomort is being unreliable at the moment. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 5 05:23:22 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:23:22 EDT Subject: Harry IS Snape! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141162 Julie: > It's an interesting irony. Snape believes Harry *is* just like James, > yet Snape never saw and still does not see the whole James Potter, > the boy who grew out of his childish ways to become a good man, > and died with dignity. If Harry learns to see the whole Snape--not > just the mean, vindictive teacher, but the man who stayed loyal > to Dumbledore no matter what was asked of him, and who helped > (will help) Harry defeat Voldemort both by protecting him and giving > him tools he'd need for that final battle, even if Snape did so with a > great deal of belligerence--then Harry will win in a way that Snape > never can and never will--by becoming not just a hero, but a good > man, just like his father. > Elyse: Would it be too much of a stretch to wonder if Snape is the one to whom this happens? In the remote possibility that Snape survives Book 7, maybe he will see the side of Harry that he has refused to acknowledge. If he can overcome his myopic vision of Harry, he may finally (and about time!) grow up! Then he and Harry can share the growing out of resentment process and finally have the spirit of forgiveness break down the invisible hatred between the two. I'm not saying theyre going to hug each other and rush off into the sunset. Snape will still be slightly nasty, sullen, sarcastic etc but there may be no more picking on Harry. Just a sort of truce where each goes his own way separately and live without outright hate of the other person Julie: Even though I [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 5 01:45:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:45:55 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <212.a8f3dfb.3073731d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141163 > Julie now: > I'm not sure Snape did recognize he was putting people in mortal > danger. I think he was just eager to do his job for Voldemort, not > really thinking ahead about where it would all lead. Of course he > should have known, but the abstract concept is much easier to > dismiss than the cold, hard facts. Once Voldemort told him it > meant the Potters, and that he was going to kill them, putting > names and faces to it brought that reality into harsh focus. > If Voldemort had named another Wizard family, I think Snape > would still have been hit in the gut by the reality of what he'd > done. I don't know if he would have followed the same path > to Dumbledore, but I think he would have left LV, perhaps to > meet up with a fate similar to Regulus Black's. > Pippin: We already have two characters who were too naive to realize what killing meant. I'm not so sure we need a third. I think Snape knew enough to know he didn't want to be a killer, but thought he was clever enough to stay out of trouble. And according to Bella, he's been able to so far. But if so, why did he change sides (if he did)? One thing we know about Snape, like Harry, he's a cauldron of displaced anger. I'd been thinking Snape's anger at James got displaced onto Harry because James was dead, but what if Snape has been displacing his anger at James for a lot longer? There are reasons why young Snape might be conflicted about hating James: James saved his life and James was everything Snape wanted to be. Snape might have dealt with the conflict by displacing his anger elsewhere; onto Muggles and Mudbloods perhaps. Perhaps Snape was not quite as naive as Regulus, but naive enough to think that pureblood wizards like James were not likely to be in danger. We can see this kind of thinking in CoS where Neville is told he can't possibly be in danger from Slytherin's monster because he's a pureblood. Racism can be fueled by displaced anger -- we can see that in the Pensieve scene where Snape throws a racial taunt at Lily but, IMO, he's really angry at himself for being weak. If Snape joined the Death Eaters as an outlet for his displaced anger at James, then he might indeed have been horrified by Voldemort's plans, because they would force him to face his conflicted feelings. As Dumbledore said, what Snape wants is to be able to hate James's memory in peace. I wonder if what Harry has to do is not forgive Snape but give him permission to hate James's memory as much as he wants to. Only then will Snape be free to see Harry as more than a surrogate James. Pippin From djklaugh at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 05:39:24 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:39:24 -0000 Subject: Destroying the horcruxes (The cave potion and soul pieces ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141164 > Jen: (snip) Dumbledore attributed his blackened hand to a 'terrible curse' upon > the ring, and the later destruction of the horcrux back at Hogwarts > seemed to have no particular ill effect on Dumbledore. Harry just > noticed the ring sitting on the table with a crack in it, after the > withered hand incident. > > Now, what the 'terrible curse' was we have to imagine, but it must > have been as destructive as the potion/water. So Snape saved > Dumbledore from the terrible curse, but was unable to get to him > quickly enough after the potion. I think the moment Dumbledore chose > to freeze Harry, losing his wand, was the point of no return for > him. Deb here: The ring was also probably protected by Slytherin - perhaps to kill the hand of who ever was not related to him who dared to put the ring on - or perhaps even touch it. While LV may have added a curse or two of his own, we can't assume it was without magical power when he acquired it. And I've wondered what would happen if an object that was already magically enhanced had other spells added on top? I suppose it depends on what the original spell was about and what was added to it... (snip) > Jen: JKR could make a potion do anything she wants it to do! I was > imagining somehow Voldemort could place an essence of himself in the > potion, that it wasn't the horcrux doing the possessing since there > wasn't even a real horcrux in the bowl, rather as the ring had a > curse upon it, the potion was the curse of possession protecting the > supposed horcrux. Like you said though, can that happen without a > soul? "Only if he poured some soul in the bowl" said Dr. Suess . > Oh well, if the potion doesn't possess (although I'm still rather > attached to the idea) there's still time to come up with new ideas! >Lipa: > > This is fairly similar to what I have been thinking. > > Dumbledore was asking to be killed, quickly. > > My guess is that the curse from the ring and/or the > > potion/water combination from the cave were finishing him > > in a horrible way, dehumanizing him (Inferi, Dementors, > > Ghosts, ... come to mind) > > and only timely death could save him from destiny > > which he considered worse than death. Deb here: I agree Lipa and Jen that the potion was intended to finish off who ever drank it... and probably also bring that person under LV's control. Can you imagine how demoralized the WW would be if DD became LV's minion? I would guess that DD and the OOP had made plans for just this possibility. DD, IMO, never underestimated LV... and he would have made plans to make sure LV could never use him in this manner.... even if it meant binding every OOP member to a UV to insure if one was present, he or she would kill DD (or any OOP member who became "infected" in this manner) immediately. I think that for DD and the OOP becoming an Inferi or some other abomination under LV's control would come under the banner of "a fate worse than death"... DD to LV (paraphrase) "we both know there are ways to destroy a man without killing him" > > You know, it suddenly struck me how *adventurous* (rash?) Dumbledore > was in HBP, attempting to get past the ring protections alone and > paying dearly for it, then drinking a potion he doesn't know the > effects of. Guess he really does trust Severus Snape! At least he > expects Snape will always be around to put the pieces back together. > I'm almost convinced that was what the fight in the forest was > about, Dumbeldore becoming slightly obsessed with the horcrux hunt & > Snape not wanting to continue to patch him up. It's one of several > possibilties, anyway. Deb again: Rather like Harry and the Sectumsempra curse... trying something without knowing what it will do... bravery or stupidity? Though DD does try to get past the block using every means of magic he can think of before drinking it. And I suspect he had at least some idea of what it might do to him.... DD was after all 150 years old and steeped in knowledge of many aspects of magic. While he was not a potions master ala Snape.. he must have gained a fairly broad understanding of potions and their effects over his life time. I think the fight in the forest, though, had broader meanings than just Snape being tired of patching up DD. IMO Snape was tired of all the roles he was playing... double agent, spin doctor, teacher, antagonist to Harry and the Griffindors, Potion Master and Healer to everyone, recluse, object of hatred and ridicule, having to hide behind his Occulmency shield, brave knight or evildoer or .... No matter how you view Snape - ESE!, ESG!, OFH! - he must be exhausted after doing all this nonstop for 6 years. Even in his retreat at Spinner's End he has to be babysitter or second in command or what ever he is to Wormtail... not much of a vacation if you ask me. >Jen: About the potion/water. I like the idea Voldemort formed the potion > to be an information device and the water to be the actual death > agent. This would be a very sinister thing to do on Voldemort's > part, using the potion to find out who was penetrating his defenses > and why, then forcing the person to drink the actual quick-acting > poison. It's overkill, but then Lord Voldemort does like his drama! > That might explain why Dumbledore was dying so slowly since Harry > only dribbled a bit on his lips and he didn't swallow it. > > I'm not sure the water would turn someone into an Inferi b/c we have > a mechanism for how that happens. And the ghosts, we know what > causes a person to become a ghost as well. I *guess* we have an > origin for the Dementors, seeing as they breed? If they can be > created though, I'd expect it was the potion since Dumbledore's > words might be interpreted as an extreme dementor experience--he > certainly seemed very frightened and appeared unable to use magic to > ward off whatever was happening. > Deb again: IMO the potion starts a process and the water seals it. DD does not get a full "dose" of the water as Harry just splashes it on his face. However before Harry did that it appeared that DD was dying or already dead - at one point he had stopped breathing and Harry's "Rennervate" brings DD around again. But when Harry fails to conjure up some water DD again seems to grow close to death "... but he did not think that Dumbledore could hear him; he had rolled onto his side and was drawing great, rattling breaths that sounded agonizing". (Agonal breathing is an indication of cardiac arrest and may sound to an observer like the person is wheezing, groaning or gasping) (HBP Scholastic edition p. 574 parenthese added). When DD is revived he can do magic... he conjures up fire to keep the Inferi away from Harry and himself... but that effort wears him out further and Harry has to help him all the way back to Hogsmead. One the tower DD again casts a spell and petrifies Harry. DD also tells Draco "Well, I certainly did have a drink... and I came back... after a fashion," mumbled Dumbledore. (p. 590) Wonder if DD only meant he came back to Hogwarts... or did he mean he came back from the dead? Deb (djklaugh) who thinks what DD was experiencing while drinking the potion was Snape's memory that he had relived for DD (much as DD in GOF makes Harry relive what happened in the graveyard when LV returned) and thus it became part of DD's memories...and is the basis of why DD trusts Snape. I can well believe that for DD the very worst thing he can remember -and what causes him the most personal pain for having been unable to prevent it- is someone else's agony, remorse, and helplessness in the face of a monsterous evil. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 5 05:42:06 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:42:06 EDT Subject: Harry IS Snape! Message-ID: <213.aa78f08.3074c1ae@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141165 My apologies for that last, incomplete post! Elyse wrote: Elyse here wou has got to congratulate Julie on an excellent post and begs for permission to use part of it to make a Remorseful!Snape case. Julie: Absolutely! I'm all for Remorseful!Snape :-) <> Julie earlier: > It's an interesting irony. Snape believes Harry *is* just like James, > yet Snape never saw and still does not see the whole James Potter, > the boy who grew out of his childish ways to become a good man, > and died with dignity. If Harry learns to see the whole Snape--not > just the mean, vindictive teacher, but the man who stayed loyal > to Dumbledore no matter what was asked of him, and who helped > (will help) Harry defeat Voldemort both by protecting him and giving > him tools he'd need for that final battle, even if Snape did so with a > great deal of belligerence--then Harry will win in a way that Snape > never can and never will--by becoming not just a hero, but a good > man, just like his father. > Elyse: Would it be too much of a stretch to wonder if Snape is the one to whom this happens? In the remote possibility that Snape survives Book 7, maybe he will see the side of Harry that he has refused to acknowledge. If he can overcome his myopic vision of Harry, he may finally (and about time!) grow up! Then he and Harry can share the growing out of resentment process and finally have the spirit of forgiveness break down the invisible hatred between the two. I'm not saying theyre going to hug each other and rush off into the sunset. Snape will still be slightly nasty, sullen, sarcastic etc but there may be no more picking on Harry. Just a sort of truce where each goes his own way separately and live without outright hate of the other person Julie now: This is exactly what I hope happens too. I focused on Harry because he is central to the story, and IMO, he *must* let go of his anger and hate and forgive Snape, or he will never be able to defeat Voldemort and achieve "hero" status. And while it's not absolutely necessary to the story that Snape also let go of his anger and hate, and see Harry for who he really is, I'd very much like for it to happen. Julie earlier: >> If this can be considered a theory, how about: Harry *Isn't* Snape, So > Yes, Forgiving Is Tantamount To Obtaining Self-possession, And Most > Importantly, Achieving Manhood Not Oppressively Tainted. > Translation to acronym: H.I.S.S.Y. F.I.T. T.O. S.A.M. I. A.M. N.O.T. Elyse: How about Forgiveness And Love: Severus' Egregious Path Rerouted to Eschew The Evil, Neutralizing Small-Minded Envious Sorcerer In acronym form: FALSE PRETENSES where the central premise of the ship, or rather the lifeboat, would be that Harry forgives Snape who is transformed by the powers of love (from Dumbledore) and forgiveness (from Harry) into a slightly less caustic man, but is still nasty enough to be a thoroughly unpleasant person. ;-) Julie: I like this theory! I'd like to see Snape redeemed and transformed, but not so much that he's unrecognizable. He just wouldn't be the same if he actually became pleasant to be around! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 06:29:41 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:29:41 -0000 Subject: Destroying the horcruxes (The cave potion and soul pieces ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141166 > > Valky: > > It occurs to me that the Diary and the Ring were probably > > destroyed in different ways. I deduce that Dumbledore may have > > attempted to re-enact to the best of his ability, the way Harry > > destroyed the Diary, but he could easily have discounted something > > important to the process, something small that Harry did, but he > > didn't. > > Jen: From Dumbledore's explanation of the ring and then reading the > cave sequence, the protections on the Horcruxes appear to be the > dangerous part of the destruction. Harry destroyed the diary > effortlessly because there were no protections on it, it was the > only horcrux 'intended as a weapon as much as a safeguard' to lure > someone into using it (Horcrux chapter). > > Dumbledore attributed his blackened hand to a 'terrible curse' upon > the ring, and the later destruction of the horcrux back at Hogwarts > seemed to have no particular ill effect on Dumbledore. Harry just > noticed the ring sitting on the table with a crack in it, after the > withered hand incident. Valky: Oh :( I really hate to do this to you Jen, but, it didn't happen that way. '...Harry noticed a ring on his uninjured hand and was set with a heavy black stone that had cracked down the middle.' Page 68, Bloomsbury HBP, Chapter 4, Horace Slughorn. The destruction of the Ring and the terrible curse on it do appear to be linkable, yet. Now I agree that Harry destroyed the diary, in the sense of the precise act of destroying it, rather effortlessly. But I wonder if it was helped along by the fact that Harry used Voldemorts own weapon (Basilisk tooth) to do it. This could be the thing that Dumbledore overlooked, and if so it would then translate sensibly that if he died bearing a Horcrux himself, it would be necessary that he died of Voldemorts potion and nothing else in order to secure the victory aginst the Ring Horcrux. This doesn't very well explain why it had to be Harry's hand that destroyed it in the end. But I suppose there could be reasons why it was always fated to be. I am sure Dumbledore was in no hurry to share the secret that he was destroying Horcruxes with a large number of people, but sharing it with Harry was necessary, and so putting Harry under the exclusive onus of being the one who has to handle Voldemorts weapon, again and destroy the Horcrux. > Lipa: > > This is fairly similar to what I have been thinking. > > Dumbledore was asking to be killed, quickly. Valky: I kind of agree with you there Lipa. I am becoming ever more certain that the pleading tone in Dumbledores voice can be explained as that it was urgent that Snape act quickly. I quite like the notion that Snape used a fake AK to conceal a non-verbal blasting-type spell, and that the idea to do so was Snapes own quick-thinking, I also like the thought that it was a clever trick that Dumbledore had taught him some time ago. Those are just my preferred interpretations of the scene. So in the sense that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape to act quickly, I agree. But I don't think he was asking Snape to kill him but rather asking him to secure the tower with a cover up of Dumbledores real cause of death. Lipa: > > My guess is that the curse from the ring and/or the > > potion/water combination from the cave were finishing him > > in a horrible way, dehumanizing him (Inferi, Dementors, > > Ghosts, ... come to mind) > > and only timely death could save him from destiny > > which he considered worse than death. Valky: I think we may, all three, be thinking along the same lines here too. >From separate directions we are all drawing a similar conclusion that Dumbledore chose death rather than become one of Voldemorts weapons. I, like Jen, really lean strongly toward possession, LV's rank favourite weapon, IMO. But I am not sure we will any of us agree on precisely what the true source of this evil is. JKR certainly didn't make it easy to narrow down either, it could definitely have been any one, or even all, of the dangers that Dumbledore ran in HBP. Fortunately there are three main ones, the Ring protections, the Ring itself and the Potion in the cave, I am sure we agree its one of those three, but which exactly we may not be able to know until book seven. > Jen: > About the potion/water. I like the idea Voldemort formed the potion > to be an information device and the water to be the actual death > agent. This would be a very sinister thing to do on Voldemort's > part, using the potion to find out who was penetrating his defenses > and why, then forcing the person to drink the actual quick-acting > poison. It's overkill, but then Lord Voldemort does like his drama! > That might explain why Dumbledore was dying so slowly since Harry > only dribbled a bit on his lips and he didn't swallow it. Valky: Oh yes, the Inferi water comes as part of it too. It certainly does seem to be pointed at by Harry's deduction that LV wanted the intruder to drink it. There is still the possibility that Voldemort only intended the intruder to break the surface of the water and then their death be caused strictly by the swarming Inferi. At the very least we know for sure that most intruders of the cave will have certainly died after the potion was drunk, so whatever information Voldemort intended to get from them, he already securely had before the surface of the water was broken. The torturous potion was definitely a tool as well as a weapon. It becomes interesting when we consider that the previous intruder R.A.B. must also have drunk some of, or all of, that potion too. What traces of that person were left behind in the cave, we re aware via Dumbledore that there is definitely a recording of RAB's intentions somewhere in the cave, is the potion our only option or is there somewhere else that it might be recorded? Did RAB drink the water? Valky Confused now. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 06:28:25 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:28:25 -0000 Subject: The Twins - Almost Right In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > truthbeauty1 wrote: > > > I was reading C.O.S. the other day and I came across something > > that I found to be odd. how did George know the moster had > > fangs? > > Crypticamoeba: > > > I believe that the twins were refering to the snake created by > > Draco Malfoy during the dueling club demostration and the fact > > that Harry is a parseltongue. > > > > The twins didn't know about Slytherin's pet! > > > > truthbeauty1 again > > I dont think I agree with you here. This comment is made after > Hermione asks about the Chamber in Prof. Binns class, ... a myth he > does say,"That is believed to be some sort of monster, which the > Heir of Slytherin alone can control." ... Since the twins are making > fun of...Harry is supposed to be the Heir of Slytherin, I believe > they would be making an alusion to this monster, not the snake in > the dueling club which had no connection to the Chamber. bboyminn: I say you ALMOST got it. I think they are making a joke of the fact that Harry can speak Parsletongue and it is because of that that people think he is the Heir of Slytherin. So Fred and George are combining those two facts into a joke, the first half of the joke is the wild speculation that Harry is the Heir of Slytherin, and the second half of the joke is the reference to having tea, and by extension, talking with his 'fanged servant'. I don't think that Fred and George know anything at all about the monster, and I don't in fact think they are even making a reference to it. Of course, that's just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 06:47:57 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:47:57 -0000 Subject: Wand breaking - Legal Sanctions and Authority In-Reply-To: <001301c5c90e$d06f3000$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Carol wrote > > breaking wizarding law. At one point in CoS, Hagrid threatens > > Draco Malfoy with expulsion is he refuses to take his detention. > > I don't think we have any evidence that his wand would have been > > broken in that instance. ... > Ffred: > > ... > > As this [deleted quote] is so, it would follow that you can be an > adult wizard (and buy a wand) even though you haven't completed > Hogwarts (or even been there in the first place). > > I'd agree that someone who is expelled or leaves wouldn't > necessarily lose their wand unless there was a breach of wizarding > law. > > hwyl > > Ffred bboyminn: I think Ffred has it right. We know from Harry encounter with the Dementors and the Ministry in OotP that the Ministry doesn't have the authority to expell students, that is up to the headmaster. However, they appear to have the power to break someone's wand, but Dumbledore presuades them to wait until the outcome of the hearing. I think Hagrid had two actions taken against him. He was expelled by the headmaster, and his wand was snapped by the Ministry and thereby, in a sense, forbidding him from doing magic. The new Headmaster (Dumbledore) knows Hagrid is innocent of all charges, and like everyone else who knows Hagrid, he looks the other way and at certain time even encourages Hagrid to do magic. Also note that during the Tri-Wizards Tournement, the Ministry enlisted Hagrid help magically growing the hedges for the maze. They did seem to mind him performing that magic. But a year later when Dumbledore and Fudge are at odds with each other, suddenly the Ministry if enforcing the sanctions against Hagrid. So, as I have often said before, the Ministry has to take an official action to reverse its sanctions against Hagrid. This is something I very much want them to do, and have indeed expected in every book since CoS. Now, with Dumbledore no longer in the picture, that doesn't seem very likely unless Harry somehow forces the Ministry's hand. As far as Hagrid not going to school, I don't see that as a big problem. To get a job, you need qualifications or at least certification of your qualifications; that comes from OWLs and NEWTs, but I don't think it is required for Hagrid to get a new wand. First of all, he already has several jobs at Hogwarts, and seems content to spend the rest of his life there, so he doesn't need his abilities certified by government tests. Remember, they give wands to 11 year olds. I have always said that Hagrid has more than enough practical experience to be a wizard with a wand, but that can only happen if the Ministry officially reverses the legal sanctions against him. You heard it here first,...again. Steve/bboyminn From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 06:54:28 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:54:28 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141169 > > Valky: > > I think Sirius might have been all but suicidal/homicidal > > before he met James, > > a_svirn: > And afterwards he discarded suicidal which left only homicidal. > Maybe he would have been better off befriending someone else after > all? Valky: Cute, a_svirn. :P I personally disagree with Snapes interpretation of Sirius' intentions with the prank, he's definitely coloured that IMO. OTOH Pettigrew, well that was long afterwards, and who could blame him. > > > Valky: > > In POA MacGonagall gives us the canon that refutes this statement > > Betsy. Nobody thought Peter was anything of a wizard. > > a_svirn: > McGonagall is only *one* person, surely? Besides "everybody" can by > disastrously wrong at times. One of the history lessons. Pettigrew > certainly was wizard enough to best Sirius and bring the Dark Lord > back to power. Valky: In any case, I think we have enough reason to belive that Pettigrew was pretty useless as a wizard to begin with. People, obviously, didn't notice him improve, they all seemed sure he was harmless and thick as two short planks. How about his OWL answers to recognising a werewolf, I mean 'tufty tail?' lol, he sure 'looked' useless enough. > > > > Valky: > > James and Sirius most likely protected > > him in the beginning. > > a_svirn: > Most likely. And he most likely sucked up to them. And James most > likely enjoyed that. Valky: Yeah I agree James got a hit out of being admired, that was definitely his major downfall. And the main reason why I debate the pensieve scenes. There are quite a few interpretations that really dismiss the implications of this about James nature. > > > > > > > Valky: > > If James was picking on Snape because of his looks and isolation, > > then what meaning does "Snape was neck deep in Dark Arts and James > > always hated the Dark Arts" have, except to argue point blank that > > Sirius and Lupin are a pair of liars. > > > > > a_svirn: > To pick on someone simply because they like something you don't is > just as bad as picking on them because of their looks and > loneliness. Valky: Well you know, I never said it was any better. However, James definitely thinks the former of Snape most of all, and not the latter, I am sure, and that is my point, the pensieve scene does not clearly represent this about James, but we know that it matters because of what Lupin and Sirius tell Harry. Unless they are lying, then the pensieve scene, at face value, is not the straight story on James and Snape. a_svirn: > As > for telling lies, Lupin is adept in that. He has lied outright and > by omission his life throughout. Valky: Hmm, okay, that seems fair. I actually question Lupins words in that scene myself, such as his ommission of the details of Snapes attacks on James. OTOH I don't question Sirius' words he's absolutely honest to the core IMO, and 'James hated the Dark Arts' were Sirius' words. Valky From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 07:09:25 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:09:25 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic (was Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Kemper: > > I think of the Dark Magic as a cigarette. For many people smoking > > a cigarette for the first time makes it infinitely easier to smoke > > a cigarette the next time. ... > > > Harry has smoked two cigarettes. He didn't seem to cough much with > > Crucio, though with Sectumsempra he seemed to find it difficult to > > breath. > > Jen: > This is a good analogy. Well, Harry has smoked several cigarettes > now, or at least tried to, throwing his nonverbal spells at Snapey. > ... Cause I agree dark magic is what tarnishes a soul, ... > > jen bboyminn: I'm going to add a side comment to this discussion, something I bring up everytime Dark Magic/Dark Arts are discussed. There is a lot of /bad/ magic that people are assuming is /dark/ magic when the truth is that there is very little magic in the books that is specifically designated as 'Dark'. My theory says that there is some distructive element to truly Dark Magic. In some way it consumes something tangible or spiritual that the Dark Wizard has no right to use. For example, the New Body Potion that Voldemort creates in GoF is clearly Dark Magic because it is distructive and consumptive. It coerces Flesh from a servant, it steals bone from a grave, and it steals blood from an enemy which is Harry. So, in a sense, I agree that Dark Magic tarnishes the soul. It diminishes the Dark Wizard because he is spiritually diminished by consuming things he has no right to consume. But by the same token I don't necessarily think that the Forbidden Curses are examples of Dark Magic, nor do I think that Sectumsempra is necessarily Dark Magic. They are definitely BAD, but that doesn't make them 'Dark'. Keep in mind you could use a Dark Spell for a good purpose, and that wouldn't change the fact that it was Dark. I believe, although the books present no direct evidence, that there are common simple charms and spells used to accomplish relatively, to the wizard world, ordinary things, which because they are destructive or in some way consumptive, they would be considered Dark. While there are very bad spells which draw on a source of universal magical power which because they are not destructive or consumptive would not be classified as Dark. Again, if you look very carefully at the books, very very little magic is actually classified as Dark; far far less than people are assuming. But then... that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From djklaugh at comcast.net Wed Oct 5 04:27:55 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 04:27:55 -0000 Subject: Emmeline: As dead as we think? (was Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141173 (Snip) Ginger: > Since I have the quote (thanks, Alla) and the leadin (thanks, > Brothergib), please allow me to go on about something that has been > on my brain. > > Is Emmeline really dead? Snape says he gave LV the info needed for > her capture and kill. Dumbledore said (in the US edition) that the > Order can hide people and fake deaths (paraphrase). > > Here's my scenario. I admit it is pulling at straws, but it may make > sense. > > Emmeline is a known order member. Snape is LV's spy on the order. > Snape has to prove himself to his master. > > Suppose that LV is demanding a sure sign of Snape's worthiness as a > spy. He tells Snape to bring about the death of an order member. > Snape reports back to the order. Emmeline volunteers to play dead. > She moves into a flat near the PM's home. > > Snape reports to LV that an order member lives near the Minister of > Muggles, and that she would make an excellent target, not only to get > rid of an order member, but to scare the Muggles. LV agrees. > > Now, LV isn't going to just send Snape off and tell him to kill her. > No, LV does have his doubts. So either he sends a DE who is secretly > an order member (Blondie?), or Snape modifies the memory of the one > who is sent with him. Personally, I prefer the former, but either > will do. > > They come back and report that the deed is done. A little draught of > living death, a few mourning next of kin, a nice service, and Thor's > your uncle. It makes the Muggle papers, and Snape is back in LV's > good graces. All Emmy has to do is stay out of sight. > > Heck, a little Polyjuice, and Emmeline's your uncle. > > All we need now is an acronym.....VIVA LAS VEGAS > Vance Is Very Alive- Leaving A Skeptical Voldy Extra Gullible About > Snape. > > Oh, gosh, my second actual theory with an acronym. > > Ginger, who has friends who just named their new baby Emmaline. > Mental note to self: Ask if they are Potter fans. LOL good one Ginger!! I like this and think you may be right ... in essence if not in the way her "death" was actually accomplished (though to my eyes your theory is very plausible). I also think a similar "fate" might have befallen Amelia Bones. Another "nasty killing", according to the Muggles Prime Minister, to frighten the muggles, pulled off in a locked room, and keep their "please men" busy. Even though LV is alleged by Fudge to have killed her himself and she "put up a real fight"... she might have had a little bottle of "Draught of Living Death" hidden in her robes, supplied, of course, by our dear potion master Snape, that she could gulp down during the heat of battle with LV. And this would be even more likely if AB was "killed" after Emmaline... could have been that LV still did not believe Snape completely and had him supply yet another name (maybe an OOP member and maybe not but as the head of the Wizagamont she certainly would be a feather in LV's death cap). I've even wondered if there might not be a version of the ROR where all these "hidden dead" witches and wizards are hanging out - complete with kitchen, loo, books, games, and other pastimes. Hummm now if Harry wandered by yearning to find what DD has hidden, might the ROR open for him to this very place? Deb (djklaugh) who thinks DD has worked for years to save the WW in many more ways than just protecting Harry From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 04:33:51 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 04:33:51 -0000 Subject: More random musings on HBP. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141174 A refreshing reread of HBP I began today has me brimming with quite a few random thoughts and musings, that I know we haven't explored very thoroughly, or at all, yet. 1. Yet again Petunia has an odd reaction to the mention of Lily's Blood Protection. While Vernon, clearly put out by what he percieves to be the impudence of Dumbledore making plans for his Household, Petunia OTOH, looks oddly flushed. 2. Dumbledore explains the backstory of Horace Slughorn rather extensively for us. One thing that stood out for me this read was his mentioning that Sluggy always had a knack for choosing students that became outstanding in their respective fields. It made me wonder what clues we might have been given by Horace's intuitive abilities in choosing his Slug Club members. Although Harry observes that Horace seems to have a taste for famous connections, I can't help but want to take DD at his word also. What is Blaise Zabini's field, and was Harry misreading Sluggy's interest in Neville Longbottom? Other names in the Slug Club are Marcus Belby, Cormac McClaggen (?whatever could be good about him?), and Hermione and Ginny whom we already know have respective uniqueness and exception to the ordinary. 3. When Dumbledore is discussing the Prophecy with Harry, DD unexpectedly insists that Harry share it with Hermione and Ron, mentioning that it would be disservice to them if he kept it to himself. Voldemort and Dumbledore (and probably Snape) have applied interpretation to the prophecy, all three are exceptionally intelligent wizards, I do believe that we are expected to count Hermione in league with these three in measures of intellect. It is Hermione who cracks Snapes Logic Puzzle, and like Snape, Hermione is another canon character who has invented a hex, and like all three, has modified existing spells to suit her purposes. In a recent thread, someone mentioned that Hermiones hex could be classified dark under some suggested criteria, which makes sense to me. Hermione's sneak hex was at least borderlining Dark Magic, which draws an interesting likeness between her and Snape. So back to the point, I do believe Dumbledores suggestion is his gentle way of passing the Prophecy to Hermione, whom he is quite sure, can uncover it's mysteries without any help. It gives him one less urgent task to accomplish before bedtime so to speak. :D 4. Dumbledore makes another interesting demand of Harry before he leaves, he tells Harry to keep his invisibilty clok t all times with him, just in case. This is of course a form of protection for Harry in the simplest sense, but I do wonder to what other end Dumbldore imagines he cloak will be useful for, if Harry uses it 'wisely'. Any Takers? Valky Apologies if this turns up twice YahooMort is risen today. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 10:46:20 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:46:20 -0000 Subject: Emmeline: As dead as we think? (was Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141175 Deb: *(snip)* > I also think a > similar "fate" might have befallen Amelia Bones. Another "nasty > killing", according to the Muggles Prime Minister, to frighten the > muggles, pulled off in a locked room, and keep their "please men" > busy. Even though LV is alleged by Fudge to have killed her himself > and she "put up a real fight"... Ceridwen: Not suggesting that this is the case, but just here, I had visions of Slughorn's temporary living quarters when Dumbledore and Harry first stopped to visit. It looked like a terrible battle had been fought there, and that Slughorn had put up a fight. The only thing missing was the Dark Mark, but then, Slughorn didn't have a lot of time, being in the bath and all when his alarms sounded. Though, I did get the impression there was a body for the Muggle authorities to find, which there wasn't with Slughorn, unless you knew which chair to poke. The mega-sleeping-potion Draught of Living Death would provide one for them. Still, I'd have to assume they would cart the body off to the morgue for the forensics experts to examine, and for an autopsy to be done, if that was the case. Unless her relatives showed up saying their religion or customs forbade autopsies. Or, that they preferred one not be done, if the cause of 'death' is sufficiently visible, or if the British government respects personal wishes apart from religious or cultural claims. (Of course, these are supposedly children's books, so all of that could reasonably be ignored if the author chose) Unless there was no body. Death has been presumed in some cases where the body was never found. Just the magnitude of the destruction, and perhaps copious swaths of dragon's blood. But, when I read it, I assumed bodies in the two cases, so there must have been. And there's no reason to think that Emaline Vance didn't have forewarning as well as Amelia Bones, if it was Snape's information which led to her 'death'. So, the Draught of Living Death could as easily have been used by her, too. Given especially DDM!Snape, lesser, OFH!Snape. And, why make that claim on the Tower if hiding people by pretending their deaths hasn't been done before? (I also wonder why Snape didn't claim involvement in Amelia Bones's death as well as Emaline Vance's. Did he think that would be OTT, given non-ESE!Snape? Or did he actually have no involvement?) Ceridwen. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 10:49:21 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:49:21 -0000 Subject: Side-Along Apparition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141176 > Greenfirespike: > The most important aspect of the Trio learning apparation is that it > now allows them to travel large distances within seconds. No more > looking for Buckbeak or floo powder... > > But it almost begs the question...who don't older students just > apparate to the gates of Hogwarts to start the term? Finwitch: Several reasons I can think of. Some of them have a duty to watch over the younger students in the train (being Prefects/Head Boy/Girl, possibly also Quidditch Captains). Some of them have not passed the test - say some with Muggle parents/guardians who just happened to be born during Summer and therefore were not old enough to take it during school year and lack means to take it during Summer (we'll see about Harry's test). Others may do so to keep company with their classmates for the last time... AND you must take into account their *trunks* that need to be taken to Hogwarts as well. You know, they're delivered separately from the train (presumably by the elves) so apparating is just too awkward (and lonely) thing to do... Finwitch From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 11:19:16 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:19:16 -0000 Subject: Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141177 > > > > a_svirn: > > To pick on someone simply because they like something you don't is > > just as bad as picking on them because of their looks and > > loneliness. > > > Valky: > Well you know, I never said it was any better. However, James > definitely thinks the former of Snape most of all, and not the latter, > I am sure, and that is my point, the pensieve scene does not clearly > represent this about James, but we know that it matters because of > what Lupin and Sirius tell Harry. It matters to Lupin and Sirius, because they didn't want Harry to think bad about James. But what does it matter to us, readers, when we know ? and you seem to agree ? that whatever James thought it didn't make his behaviour any better? Honestly all that "he hated the Dark Arts" excuse sounded lame even for Harry's ears ? and he wanted desperately to be reassured. a_svirn From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 11:20:25 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:20:25 -0000 Subject: Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: <20051001123313.38996.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141178 Magda: > Nor am I clear on exactly how Dudley is punished for being a bully by > being terrified out of his wits by an engorged tongue. The twins > never tie the result to his earlier sins against Harry so that he'd > get the message not to bug Harry. Finwitch: Not tie it to Dudley's sins? I must disagree. The swollen tongue was a direct consequence of Dudley eating a stolen piece of candy, despite of his parents telling him not to eat any candy (or donuts for that matter) - and actually forbidding him something for the first time in his life. In addition, Dudley knew (via Harry) that magic is real. Dudley had a choice and he chose to eat it-- then he had to suffer the consequences until this adult wizard shrunk his tongue. So what changed? 1) Dudley appears quite fit in OOP - guess he *did* follow his diet all year, in addition to his boxing. 2) Dudley does not hit Harry, even if Harry deliberately annoys him with that Dudders- business... So he's at least ensuing *some* self-control (though not with poor Mark Evans). I think it's good for him, actually. Finwitch From ken.fruit at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 11:25:47 2005 From: ken.fruit at gmail.com (rt11guru) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:25:47 -0000 Subject: How long was Snape a DE? was: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141179 Julie wrote: BTW, do we know exactly how long Snape was with the DEs? Guru asks: I've been having trouble getting through all the threads so this may have already been disected, but has anyone discussed the idea that Snape never was really a DE, that he was a spy when he joined? From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Wed Oct 5 03:15:19 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:15:19 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141180 > Phoenixgod2000: I can see lots of uses for the imperious curse. How >about the use of the curse in mental health work, i.e. stop cutting >yourself or stop starving yourself. CH3ed: But that would be just a bandage treatment without actually treating the cause of the mental conditions, wouldn't it? I don't know if that is worth the side effects. It seems a person under the imperious curse is in a forced state of detached bliss or something (from the description of what HP felt when the fake Moody did imperio on him in book IV). And when a person fights it he could look quite mad like Crouch, Sr when HP & Krum found him in the forest. CH3ed From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 11:33:16 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:33:16 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141181 > Carol: >> Granted, a number of spells (notably "Obliviate!") are also subject to > abuse, but they also have other uses (the MoM protecting itself from > notice by Muggles or protecting Muggles from their own traumatic > memories). I'm not justifying the use of "Obliviate," which I > personally think is as much a violation of subjectivity as Imperio; > I'm just saying that there are excellent reasons why Imperio, like > Crucio, should never be used. > I am genuinely puzzled by this logic. If one spell that violates one's personality has its uses, than why not employ another one? Or is it just because it is mostly used on muggles? Then why not go ahead and use the other three on them? Wait, I know why, it would be a breach of the Stature of Secrecy. a_svirn From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Oct 5 04:39:03 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 04:39:03 -0000 Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > I don't get why temptation is only a Star Wars theme! We're in > agreement Harry is not the next Anakin, but that doesn't mean > temptation won't be a theme in Book 7. So far Harry thinks pretty > much like you do, he saw what happened with the Sectumsempra when he > used it on Draco and felt remorse, but there he is, still trying to > use it on Snape plus a couple of Crucios. I don't think this > qualifies as serious moral danger yet, but I do think the more he > gives in to hatred, the less that power which saves him from > Voldemort will be operational in protecting him. Not only Star Wars, I suppose, but trite beyond belief in the post- Star Wars era, particularly when your dealing with people that have special "sorcerers' ways" to quote Grand Moff Tarkin. And I'm not at all sure that what we have seen of Harry constitutes "giving in to hatred" in any way that would imperil the "power of love" that Dumbledore has mentioned repeatedly. As I say, if he were a Jedi it would, but he's not a Jedi and this is not a world where fierce emotion and attachment are per se bad and dangerous things. In fact, it is attachment and fierce emotion that tend to save Harry time and again. Now, I guess you could get rid of hatred and still feel fierce love, but we are into the country of Saint Harry once again at that point, which strays out of Star Wars and into the even more problematic region of a Sunday School lesson. > > Jen: Funny you should mention this, because *Snape* is the one most > aware of Harry's attempts at dark magic. Whether anyone knew about > the incident in the MOM with Bella is pretty tough to say. Harry, at > least, never told anyone. The Sectumsempra I feel certain Dumbledore > didn't know about. How could Dumbledore NOT know about it? MCGONAGALL knew about it, for heavens' sake! And it's unbelievable that she would not at least mention the matter to Dumbledore, even if Snape does not. Certainly she is in part aware of Harry's importance, or at least of DD's interest in the boy. She also knows about Harry's suspicions of Draco. It just isn't in any way believable that she would say "Well, Harry cut Malfoy to ribbons, but I won't say anything to Dumbledore, because it isn't like he would like to know that the boy he has such an interest in cut another boy -- one he had accused of being in league with the DEs -- to ribbons using some kind of spell he should not have known." Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Oct 5 05:17:43 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:17:43 -0000 Subject: Good writer (was: Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: <20051003192037.51493.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141183 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mira wrote: > , > > > Why did you reach this conclusion, Lupinlore? I am > interested because, hard as I tried, I had exactly the > same impression all through HBP, but I would not be > able to put the finger on what was causing it. Can > you? > Sorry it's taken a while to continue the thread. I wanted to think on it a day or so. I think it's several things. In the case of HBP, I think the romance hurt a lot. It just wasn't well done or particularly believable, even taking into account that these are teenagers. However, I think more to the point JKR is hurt by the way the different books come together, or rather fail to come together. The radical changes in tone from one book to another are jarring and work hard against suspension of disbelief. Much worse, the characters develop in odd and unbelievable ways, generally dictated by the demands of the plot. I hold to the idea that in good writing character dictates plot, not the other way around. In the last couple of books JKR has violated that maxim a depressing number of times. To make matters worse, the plot lines are often dictated by tired and predictable formulas. JKR herself has said that Sirius and Dumbledore both died because the standard formulas of hero literature require that Harry lose his father figures. Not a very good reason to kill a couple of characters with whom she might have done far more interesting and original things, and even much deeper and more insightful things from the standpoint of writing and literature. Also, be honest, who that has ever played D&D could read about the "quest for the seven horcruxes" and not at least titter, if not outright guffaw? It was like she walked into a comic-book shop and decided to use the plot of the first old D&D module she found lying in the Clearance Sale box. Worst of all, JKR has a bad habit, as I've said before, of writing herself into corners and then getting out by, well, cheating. It's like the old Saturday matinees where you see a car go over a cliff with the hero inside and spend all week wondering how he's going to survive, only to return the next week and be treated to a scene where the hero jumped out of the car BEFORE it went over the cliff. I am among those who thought JKR made some fairly serious mistakes with OOTP, but I was hoping she would deal with them fairly. Instead, she just swept most of the challenging plot-lines (Harry's anger and guilt, Dumbledore's complicity in the Dursleys abuse of Harry, grieving over Sirius, house unity, the development of Neville and Luna, McGonagall's mishandling of Harry and the Umbridge situation, Harry's relationship with Lupin in the wake of Sirius' death, even much of Harry's hatred of Snape) under the rug with either a couple of brief sentences or with no mention at all. Finally, she gave us a plotline (the whole Snape plotline) in HBP that was so blatantly manipulative it felt like she was wearing boxing gloves instead of using the delicate touch that was needed. And, given the problems above, she leaves little faith that she'll resolve it without a lot of rug-sweeping and hand-waving. In the wake of all of that, I think most of the books (with the probable exception of OOTP) are good judged on their own merits, but they don't fit together smoothly or believably -- even allowing for the "Harry growing up" effect that is sometimes trotted out to excuse some of the roughness. All in all, the story arc and especially the development of the characters and the follow-through of challenging plotlines just aren't up to the potential that shone through in JKR's better work, particularly PoA. I'm reminded of something Roger Ebert, the film critic, said recently. When challenged as to why he gave "War of the Worlds" a relatively poor review when he had given much more favorable recommendations to worse movies, he said, "If this movie had been directed by anyone else, I would have given it a better review. But this is Stephen Spielberg, who gave us three of the best sci-fi movies of the past thirty years. And from him, this doesn't rate a good review." Similarly, much of the problem with JKR wouldn't be a big deal if this wasn't the woman who wrote the first four books, particularly PoA. But she is, and I "KNOW" she has it in her to do "MUCH" better than this. And therefore, I have to say, her performance since the end of GoF has been a severe disappointment. Lupinlore From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Wed Oct 5 06:47:55 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 06:47:55 -0000 Subject: Is Murder Necessary? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141184 > Elyse (Re: Harry IS Snape!): So I dont see why the same logic cant >be applied to Snape. I'm sure he hated James and co for many >reasons, not just the infamous prank. And I'm sure he may have said >as Harry did that he would be happy to see the Marauders dead, and >he may have believed it as Harry did. ------- I think its a fair >supposition that Snape really did feel sorry, even if it was just a >tiny little bit, that James was dead. And the fact that he owed the >guy a life debt didnt exactly make things any less complicated. CH3ed: It is complicated indeed. I think what Snape really regrets was Lily's death. She was probably the only one outside of his Slytherine gang to stand up for him in school (faculty not counted). I think Snape might have even been in love with her (since JKR seems to emphasize the power of love a lot). I think Wormtail has some self redeeming to do in Book 7. He owes Harry his life (DD said that created a bond between them), and there was that flash of triumph in DD's eyes when Harry told him Wormtail cut his arm to get blood to resussitate LV. I also wonder if Harry will necessarily have to murder LV. The PROPHECY says that,"neither can live while the other survives," that means they can't co- exist.... but does it necessarily means one would have to do the deed of killing the other? Harry wanted to kill Sirius badly in PoA before he was convinced that Sirius didn't betray his parents to their death. He had the chance (tho I'm not sure how he would have done it since the most aggrasive spell he knew then was expellamius) in the Shrieking Shack before Lupin bursted in, but he didn't do it. Maybe he will spare LV too only to have LV be killed by Snape or Wormtail instead? That would not violate the prophecy the way it is made. CH3ed From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 12:56:05 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:56:05 -0000 Subject: Emmeline: As dead as we think? (was Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141185 Deb (djklaugh) wrote: > LOL good one Ginger!! I like this and think you may be right ... in > essence if not in the way her "death" was actually accomplished > (though to my eyes your theory is very plausible). I also think a > similar "fate" might have befallen Amelia Bones. Ginger: Thanks! Actually, I think Amelia is dead. She's pretty darn important in the WW, and, as you said, Fudge claims LV did her in himself. Also Snape doesn't mention her, which I take to mean he had nothing to do with it. As far as we know, she's not an actual order member, so Snape couldn't be expected to have any info on her. Mostly it's just a gut feeling that I have. It seems more than a little mean to Susan and the rest of the Boneses. Then again, this is war. Ginger snips; Deb continues: > I've even wondered if there might not be a version of the ROR where > all these "hidden dead" witches and wizards are hanging out - > complete with kitchen, loo, books, games, and other pastimes. Hummm > now if Harry wandered by yearning to find what DD has hidden, might > the ROR open for him to this very place? Ginger: That's funny! The R&R RoR. Club Dead. Or they're all living in Beulah, North Dakota with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa. Carol, can you check Area 51 for us? Ginger, going to bed now, with a big smile. Thanks, Deb! From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Wed Oct 5 07:04:20 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 07:04:20 -0000 Subject: The Twins - Almost Right In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141186 I don't think the twins knew about the monster either, but I wonder if they knew about the passage that led to the Chamber. When they gave Harry the Marauders' Map to sneak out to Hogsmeade there were 5 tunnels. Filch knows about 3 and 1 'caved in' the year before, leaving the one that goes to Honeydukes' cellar that Harry used. I wonder if the caved in tunnel wasn't the one that led to the chamber.... it caved in the same year Harry rescued Ginny from there (and Lockhart had his memory wiped in that failed spell). CH3ed From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 13:26:09 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:26:09 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141187 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ch3ed" wrote: > > Phoenixgod2000: > I can see lots of uses for the imperious curse. How > >about the use of the curse in mental health work, i.e. stop cutting > >yourself or stop starving yourself. > > > > CH3ed: > But that would be just a bandage treatment without actually > treating the cause of the mental conditions, wouldn't it? I don't > know if that is worth the side effects. It seems a person under the > imperious curse is in a forced state of detached bliss or something > (from the description of what HP felt when the fake Moody did imperio > on him in book IV). And when a person fights it he could look quite > mad like Crouch, Sr when HP & Krum found him in the forest. Ceridwen: Stopping self-injurious behaviors won't fix the root cause, but it will stop the behaviors so the actual treatments can begin or continue. Worse would be a patient who is violent. Imperius could calm that behavior so the medical staff can at least give him or her dinner without being in physical danger, not to mention the therapists who will need to work with that person on a regular basis for an hour or more at a time. But, I was thinking that in the WW, since they have already been allowed, at least at one time, to use Unforgiveables, that Imperius could keep a prisoner or group of prisoners from escaping while the rest of a gang was being rounded up, and keep them from escaping while in detention before trial. Other, lesser spells could be used, sure. But in extreme cases, Imperius might be the best way to go in this line of work. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 14:03:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:03:57 -0000 Subject: Beneficial use of Imperius? WAS:Re: Motivations for Joining DEs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141188 > Ceridwen: > But, I was thinking that in the WW, since they have already been > allowed, at least at one time, to use Unforgiveables, that Imperius > could keep a prisoner or group of prisoners from escaping while the > rest of a gang was being rounded up, and keep them from escaping while > in detention before trial. Other, lesser spells could be used, sure. > But in extreme cases, Imperius might be the best way to go in this line > of work. Alla: I am not sure about that. Don't forget that the person who allowed to use the Unforgiveables is not described in very falttering tones, and in general, I did not pick anything approving in the narrative about Barty Sr. regime. JMO, of course. On the website, JKR is even less flattering to Barty, no? She describes him as"power mad and increasingly unjust" in the answer about Veritaserum. What am I getting at? I did not get an impression that use of unforgiveables was described in GoF as the action worthy of Light side and even not as action justified by war. Again, just me. So, I doubt that we will see the use of Imperius in wizarding prisons, unless Voldie wins this war. :-) I may agree that Imperius could be used with mental patients, but I am not sure they would be able to get around "unforgiveableness" of this one. JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 5 15:02:19 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:02:19 -0000 Subject: Destroying the horcruxes (The cave potion and soul pieces ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141189 Valky: > Oh :( I really hate to do this to you Jen, but, it didn't happen > that way. > '...Harry noticed a ring on his uninjured hand and was set > with a heavy black stone that had cracked down the middle.' Page > 68, Bloomsbury HBP, Chapter 4, Horace Slughorn. > > The destruction of the Ring and the terrible curse on it do appear > to be linkable, yet. Jen: Oh, dear. I made mistakes left and right yesterday, must be time for a re-read! Thank you for pointing that out Valky, so I won't continue along the line of false reasoning. :) Valky: > Now I agree that Harry destroyed the diary, in the sense of the > precise act of destroying it, rather effortlessly. But I wonder if > it was helped along by the fact that Harry used Voldemorts own > weapon (Basilisk tooth) to do it. This could be the thing that > Dumbledore overlooked, and if so it would then translate sensibly > that if he died bearing a Horcrux himself, it would be necessary > that he died of Voldemorts potion and nothing else in order to > secure the victory aginst the Ring Horcrux. This doesn't very well > explain why it had to be Harry's hand that destroyed it in the > end. Deb: > The ring was also probably protected by Slytherin - perhaps to > kill the hand of who ever was not related to him who dared to put > the ring on - or perhaps even touch it. While LV may have added a > curse or two of his own, we can't assume it was without magical > power when he acquired it. Jen: Putting your two comments together really makes me think Harry is naturally suited to destroying Horcruxes because of the power transfer from the last heir of Slytherin. In fact, we know so little about the event causing this--by transferring a 'bit of himself' to Harry, did Voldemort unintentionally link Harry to Slytherin's line? That would certainly mark Harry as his equal! I really like your idea, Deb, that Slytherin himself or someone down the line protected the ring to be worn only by Slytherin's bloodline. The locket would not appear to have the same protection since many people have been able to touch it--but has anyone else actually tried to wear it? Hepzibah kept it in the box, and we don't know if people tried it on at Borgin & Burkes. Back to Harry, since all the objects contain part of the soul of Slytherin's heir, I'd say even the objects that aren't Slytherin's will be easier for Harry to destroy than for anyone else. Voldemort handing him weapons again. Well, in fact we know this, because the diary wasn't a special object, merely imbued with the memory of the last heir. Valky: > From separate directions we are all drawing a similar conclusion > that Dumbledore chose death rather than become one of Voldemorts > weapons. I, like Jen, really lean strongly toward possession, LV's > rank favourite weapon, IMO. Fortunately there are three > main ones, the Ring protections, the Ring itself and the Potion in > the cave, I am sure we agree its one of those three, but which > exactly we may not be able to know until book seven. Deb: > I think that for DD and the OOP becoming an Inferi or some other > abomination under LV's control would come under the banner of "a > fate worse than death"... DD to LV (paraphrase) "we both know > there are ways to destroy a man without killing him" Jen: This is a tangent, but will come back around to the above comments. JKR has definitely trounced the idea Harry is a Gryffindor heir. But I don't think her interview statement ruled out Dumbledore. We're due an explanation of why Lily and James were protected at Godric's Hollow, how Dumbledore came to own Fawkes and the 'importance of Dumbledore's family' mentioned by JKR. I think they all have the same answer, and Dumbledore and Aberforth are the last heirs of Gryffindor.(As a total aside I expect Aberforth will have to go in Book 7 for this reason, so all the remaining heirs of the feuding founders will be laid to rest.) As Gryffindor's heir, I think DD would be uniquely *unqualified* to deal with finding and destroying the Horcruxes, especially those of Slytherin. As such, I wonder if that's why the very powerful Dumbledore was struggling so much against the protections and the ring itself, and why he became so powerless in the cave after the potion. The curses and deadly potions and all the rest were probably enough in themselves, yet...there's still a question in my mind. That his wand hand could be destroyed was really significant, and how he reacted to the potion was another. Perhaps even Regulus found it easier than Dumbledore. And I don't think the knowledge he would have a harder time would stop Dumbledore from trying. He certainly planned to do all he could to save Harry from dealing with the horcruxes alone, a fact we see through all his research and the attempt to detroy the ring on his own. Deb: > Though DD does try to get past the block [potion] using every > means of magic he can think of before drinking it. And I suspect > he had at least some idea of what it might do to him.... DD was > after all 150 years old and steeped in knowledge of many aspects > of magic. While he was not a potions master ala Snape.. he must > have gained a fairly broad understanding of potions and their > effects over his life time. Jen: Plus he may have taken a preventative antidote for just such an occasion. At the very least he knew the potion wouldn't kill him, and if he did take a preventative, he expected it would last him until he could get back to Hogwarts. I don't think he counted on the water, though. Deb: > DD also tells Draco "Well, I certainly did have a drink... and I > came back...after a fashion," mumbled Dumbledore. (p. 590) Wonder > if DD only meant he came back to Hogwarts... or did he mean he > came back from the dead? Jen: Or came back in an altered form, as we all mentioned on this thread? My other reading is Dumbledore is just making a little private joke. After all, he can still use manners while he's dying so no need to lose that quirky sense of humour! Valky: > It becomes interesting when we consider that the previous intruder > R.A.B. must also have drunk some of, or all of, that potion too. > What traces of that person were left behind in the cave, we re > aware via Dumbledore that there is definitely a recording of RAB's > intentions somewhere in the cave, is the potion our only option or > is there somewhere else that it might be recorded? Did RAB drink > the water? Jen: So you think whatever information Voldemort gleaned from the potion-drinker would stay in the cave? The only thing blocking me on this idea is how Dumbledore seems to see only Voldemort's traces in the cave. You're saying he saw traces of R.A.B. as well? Oh, maybe you're just saying they *should* be in the cave somewhere because R.A.B. was also a magical person. If DD saw traces of someone else though, he might start to expect the horcrux was tampered with or at least express this oddity to Harry since the cave should only be known to Voldemort. Jen From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 5 15:33:56 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:33:56 -0000 Subject: How long was Snape a DE? was: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rt11guru" wrote: > Julie wrote: > BTW, do we know exactly how long Snape was with the DEs? > > Guru asks: > I've been having trouble getting through all the threads so this may > have already been disected, but has anyone discussed the idea that > Snape never was really a DE, that he was a spy when he joined? I don't know if it has been discussed, but I do have a thought or two on the subject. What does DD mean when he tells the courtroom in GoF that Snape *came back*? Sorry, don't have my book in front of me, but I believe this is what he said....Did Snape start out working for DD, get seduced by LV, became a DE spy, had second thoughts and turned back to DD? colebiancardi From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 5 15:34:19 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:34:19 -0000 Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141191 > > Jen: Funny you should mention this, because *Snape* is the one > > most aware of Harry's attempts at dark magic. Whether anyone > > knew about the incident in the MOM with Bella is pretty tough to > > say. Harry, at least, never told anyone. The Sectumsempra I feel > > certain Dumbledore didn't know about. Lupinlore: > How could Dumbledore NOT know about it? MCGONAGALL knew about it, > for heavens' sake! And it's unbelievable that she would not at > least mention the matter to Dumbledore, even if Snape does not. > Certainly she is in part aware of Harry's importance, or at least > of DD's interest in the boy. She also knows about Harry's > suspicions of Draco. It just isn't in any way believable that she > would say "Well, Harry cut Malfoy to ribbons, but I won't say > anything to Dumbledore, because it isn't like he would like to > know that the boy he has such an interest in cut another boy -- > one he had accused of being in league with the DEs -- to ribbons > using some kind of spell he should not have known." Jen: Geez, Lupinlore, I made a *mistake*. I went back to read that section of HBP and saw that yes indeedy, Snape not only told the entire staff, but Pansy didn't hesitate to 'vilify' Harry far and wide. I never stated, or even insinuated, any of the above comments you made though, about why I mistakenly thought Dumbledore didn't know. DD knowing of the Sectumsempra may weaken, but doesn't invalidate, the points I made upthread which you snipped out and didn't address (and I'm not saying you have to address every point, just that this one section was taken out of a larger context). Jen From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 5 15:40:27 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:40:27 -0000 Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141192 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: Geez, Lupinlore, I made a *mistake*. I went back to read that > section of HBP and saw that yes indeedy, Snape not only told the > entire staff, but Pansy didn't hesitate to 'vilify' Harry far and > wide. I never stated, or even insinuated, any of the above comments > you made though, about why I mistakenly thought Dumbledore didn't > know. DD knowing of the Sectumsempra may weaken, but doesn't > invalidate, the points I made upthread which you snipped out and > didn't address (and I'm not saying you have to address every point, > just that this one section was taken out of a larger context). > > Jen the only point I would like to make is, I don't think Pansy *had* to vilify Harry. What Harry did was horrific. Draco could have died from the Sectumsempra hex. So, in this case, Pansy told the truth about Harry - unless she said that Draco was attacked unprovoked - I don't have my book in front of me... colebiancardi From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 15:54:39 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:54:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's use of Sectusemtra. WAS: Intention in Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141193 Colebiancardi: > the only point I would like to make is, I don't think Pansy *had* to > vilify Harry. What Harry did was horrific. Draco could have died > from the Sectumsempra hex. So, in this case, Pansy told the truth > about Harry - unless she said that Draco was attacked unprovoked - I > don't have my book in front of me... > Alla: Horrific? I mean, sure Draco could die. IF Harry knew what the curse could do, I would absolutely agree with you and call it "horrific". Since he did not, I would call what he did to be supremely stupid, since it IS stupid to use the curses, whose meanings you do not know on people. I think the fact that Harry was horrified by the effect of the curse cured him from this stupidity, but I don't know if I would call it horrific. JMO, Alla. From samwise_the_grey at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 16:02:56 2005 From: samwise_the_grey at yahoo.com (samwise_the_grey) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:02:56 -0000 Subject: Forbidden Education In-Reply-To: <20051002024802.32817.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141194 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mira wrote: since he was the only werewolf > who was allowed access to education. Thus Dumbledore's > legacy lives on... > > Mira We don't know that for certain. I would find it depressing that Lupin is the only werewolf to go to Hogwarts. Dumbledore and his staff have proven they are at least tolerent enough to allow a werewolf to both learn and teach. It's proven that there are certainly none currently using the Shack during Harry's 3rd year. That doesn't rule out 2 possibilties: 1: There have been other werewolves enrolled after Lupin left school but none during Harry's 3rd year. 2: They remembered to take their potion, provided by Snape, and thus don't need to use the Shack. It might also be possible that the Lupins are the only parents to approach Dumbledore about educating their werewolf child. To reveal his nature to other people could jeapordize his safety and osterize the family. So either Dumbledore's tolerance was well known and believable or the Lupins knew him personally and took him into their confidence. From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Wed Oct 5 16:08:51 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:08:51 -0000 Subject: Emmeline: As dead as we think? (was Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141196 CH3ed: Ginger & Deb's theory that Emmeline and Mme Bones (and maybe others?) faked their death is interesting. I also wonder what does the drought of the living death do. However, it seems to be a canon to me that the AK is not blockable and there is no counter spell to it. Harry only survived it the first time because Lily died to save him, and the second time was because his wand and LV's share a core. Also, if Snape 'modified' the memory of the DE who did the murders, wouldn't LV be able to break it? He did Bertha Jorkins and he is one of the best legilimens ever. CH3ed From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 16:38:34 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:38:34 -0000 Subject: Emmeline: As dead as we think? (was Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141197 > CH3ed wrote: > > Ginger & Deb's theory that Emmeline and Mme Bones (and maybe > others?) faked their death is interesting. I also wonder what does > the drought of the living death do. However, it seems to be a canon to > me that the AK is not blockable and there is no counter spell to it. > Harry only survived it the first time because Lily died to save him, > and the second time was because his wand and LV's share a core. > Also, if Snape 'modified' the memory of the DE who did the > murders, wouldn't LV be able to break it? He did Bertha Jorkins and he > is one of the best legilimens ever. > zgirnius: I don't think that Emmeline was killed with the AK. If one of the purposes of the murder was to intimidate Muggles, AK would be the wrong curse to use. The death would then not look to Muggles like the result of "foul play". Recall that the Riddles were murdered by Tom, and the gardener Frank Bryce was suspected. But this never led to charges because on further investigation the authorities were forced to conclude that all three just dropped dead for no apparent reason... The memory modification would be a risk, of course. But I gather that what Voldemort did to Bertha Jorkins is not something he would typically do to a random DE who had just (seemingly) accomplished a successful mission. What was done to Bertha rendered her completely useless thereafter... And a casual Legilimensing wwould not turn up anything suspicious. I think this is a nice theory about the Vance murder. From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Wed Oct 5 16:30:48 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:30:48 -0000 Subject: Good writer (was: Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141198 CH3ed: I actually like the jarringly different tones among the books. I admit I was very tempted to skip the opening chapter half way thru PoA's first chapter. Then Harry ran away from home. The characters are now reaching their puberty years. I think JKR is actually doing a great job with their developement. I remember when I was in my late teens.... It wasn't pretty. I would be very unnatural and unrealistic if Harry remains the long suffering and restrained youth of book 1 & 2. JKR has made some mistakes, but I really haven't seen any major one yet. CH3ed. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 17:38:48 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:38:48 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141199 juli17 Wrote: > it's pretty clear Harry's anger and > hatred of Snape are out of proportion > to anything Snape is doing to him > (or has done to him in the past). I must say that strikes me as an extraordinary thing to say. Think for a moment of the person you hate the most in the entire world, whatever injustice that person has inflicted on you I very much doubt it could compare to what Harry received at the hands of Snape since he was one year old. > he [Harry] is 'clinging' to his notion > that Snape is at fault for Sirius's death, > just because that belief is so emotionally > satisfying. It may be emotionally satisfying to believe it, but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to think it is at least particularly true. And if Snape wasn't 100% responsible for Sirius's death he certainly was for Dumbledore's. > [Harry] remains stubbornly negative throughout > HBP, to the point that he argues with > Dumbledore over fetching Snape when he *knows > full well* that Snape has already saved > Dumbledore from one horcrux curse. Yes Dumbledore said Snape saved his life from the Horcrux curse, but Harry had every reason to believe the Headmaster was mistaken about that. Indeed by the end of the book we realize Harry had a much better measure of Snape than Dumbledore every had, or anybody else for that matter except maybe Sirius. > Harry really hates Snape. I mean, he really, > REALLY hates Snape. He would be very happy > if Snape were dead, no less. That is true, by the end of book 6 Harry's hatred of Snape equals his hatred of Voldemort, and with good reason. > His hatred of Snape mirrors Snape's > hatred of James The two are just not comparable, James bullied Snape and Snape bullied Harry, but in addition Snape played a key part in the murder of Harry's father, mother and Godfather, and Harry watched Snape kill Dumbledore and push him out of a tower with his own two eyes. It's the difference between evil and mischief. > Harry doesn't acknowledge or care that > Snape has saved his life more than once By my count Harry saved Snape's life and that of the entire wizard world at least 3 times, and Harry is the only one who has a chance of saving it once more, and Snape still treats Harry like dirt. > Harry doesn't acknowledge any > positive action by Snape And events have shown Harry was very wise to take that line, events have shown Harry to be much wiser than Dumbledore. > whether adult Harry will become adult Snape I rather doubt JKR will make Harry take that path, but it might be rather interesting if she did. Eggplant From papa at marvels.org Wed Oct 5 16:45:16 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (rmiller3rd) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:45:16 -0000 Subject: Possible Horcrux? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141200 I was just thinking about possible horcruxes, (forgive me if I'm missing something, I don't have the books handy and haven't read all the messages so I'm not sure if someone has already proposed it), how about the cursed necklace Harry sees Draco looking at in Borgin & Burkes near the beginning of CoS? Has that been proposed as one? A necklace that kills muggles who wear it might be just what LV would find funny. Just a thought. rmiller3rd From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 18:41:18 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:41:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Full Story/ Book 7 WAS Re: Bullying In-Reply-To: <1d8.46a8326b.30736a9d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141201 Julie: We know what Harry saw, but that doesn't mean it's the full story. We are still missing a dozen or more pertinent facts, including what Dumbledore meant when he said "Severus, please...", whether Dumbledore could or could not recover from the cave horcrux curse by the time Snape did arrive, why Snape went so easy on Harry while Harry was trying to crucio him, etc, etc. That's what I mean when I say the scene is shrouded in doubt. Whether they end up proving DDM or ESE Snape, we are certain to learn more facts about this scene in Book 7. PJ replies: I totally agree with this. It certainly can't be the full story. There's just too many unanswered questions we'll have to wait for book 7 to (hopefully) clear up. I deleted the rest of the post as we both seemed to have misunderstood the point of the other in most of it. Now that it's cleared up for both of us, I thought this seemed like the important part to respond to. :-) Julie: Either way those facts won't negate the canon event we saw on the Tower PJ replies: You're right. Negate was the wrong word as canon is simply built upon rather than shown to have been false. JKR loves to throw in surprises. Hope she doesn't become too clever for her own good. I think my greatest fear for book 7 is JKR trying to clear things up quickly by having a character come out of nowhere telling us what really happened - or why they happened - without showing us some of the required backstory. She did a bit of that in book 6 and it really annoyed me to no end. I want a LONG letter from Dumbledore along with the entire pensieve memory of that night in GH (and what led up to it) laid out clearly as well as a discussion or two with Dumbledore's picture. I want it ALL! I don't care if we need a crane to hold the book so it can be read, I want a reasonable storyline :-) PJ From smilingator81 at aol.com Wed Oct 5 19:18:16 2005 From: smilingator81 at aol.com (smilingator4915) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:18:16 -0000 Subject: The Twins - Almost Right In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141202 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ch3ed" wrote: > I don't think the twins knew about the monster either, but I > wonder if they knew about the passage that led to the Chamber. When > they gave Harry the Marauders' Map to sneak out to Hogsmeade there > were 5 tunnels. Filch knows about 3 and 1 'caved in' the year before, > leaving the one that goes to Honeydukes' cellar that Harry used. I > wonder if the caved in tunnel wasn't the one that led to the > chamber.... it caved in the same year Harry rescued Ginny from there > (and Lockhart had his memory wiped in that failed spell). > > CH3ed smilingator: Okay, so everyone is just simply explaining away the twins "knowing" about the monster as them joking about Harry being able to speak Parseltongue. But what about Fred and George's extremely accurate prediction of who would win the Quidditch World Cup and who would grab the snitch? These two are smart and I doubt they would bet everything they had on a wild guess. And what about them knowing the words to make the Marauder's map work? I agree with dream on this one... there's more to Fred and George than we know. JMO From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 5 21:47:01 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:47:01 -0000 Subject: The Twins - Almost Right In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141203 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ch3ed" wrote: > I don't think the twins knew about the monster either, but I > wonder if they knew about the passage that led to the Chamber. When > they gave Harry the Marauders' Map to sneak out to Hogsmeade there > were 5 tunnels. Filch knows about 3 and 1 'caved in' the year > before, leaving the one that goes to Honeydukes' cellar that Harry > used. I wonder if the caved in tunnel wasn't the one that led to > the chamber.... it caved in the same year Harry rescued Ginny from > there (and Lockhart had his memory wiped in that failed spell). > > CH3ed Geoff: This was discussed at some length a good while ago, in February last year to be exact. The following quote is from a reply I posted as message 90496: Constance Vigilance: > I think this > fact was demonstrated when Ron's wand malfunction in the Chamber > tunnel FAR below Hogwarts was able to cause a cave-in and block the > roomy passageway way up on the 4th floor. This is the secret > passageway that the twins and Sirius mention. I think this is good > evidence that at least those two passageways are related. I think > most or all of them are related - and many of them lead out. > Geoff: I must be being a bit thick but where did that idea come from? According to canon, Fred speaking.... "'Don't bother with the one behind the mirror on the fourth floor. We used it until last winter but it's caved in - completely blocked.'" (POA "The Marauder's Map" p.144 UK edition) This is in the November of 1993. So the cave-in was in the winter of 1992. but Harry's confrontation with the basilisk was in the summer of '93 at the end of his second year. "Ten minutes into the class, Professor McGonagall told them that their exams would start on the first of June, one week from today." (COS "The Chamber of Secrets" p.210 UK edition) And Ginny was taken into the chamber three days before this date (i.e. 29th May). "Three days before their first exam, Professor McGonagall made another announcement at breakfast." (p.211 same chapter) From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 21:48:19 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:48:19 -0000 Subject: Destroying the horcruxes (The cave potion and soul pieces ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141204 >Valky wrote: >At the very least we >know for sure that most intruders of the cave will have certainly >died after the potion was drunk, so whatever information Voldemort >intended >to get from them, he already securely had before the surface of the >water was broken. The torturous potion was definitely a tool as well >as a weapon. It becomes interesting when we consider that the >previous >intruder R.A.B. must also have drunk some of, or all of, that potion >too. What traces of that person were left behind in the cave, we re >aware via Dumbledore that there is definitely a recording of RAB's >intentions somewhere in the cave, is the potion our only option or >is there somewhere else that it might be recorded? Did RAB drink >the water? >Jen wrote: >So you think whatever information Voldemort gleaned from the >potion-drinker would stay in the cave? The only thing blocking me on >this idea is how Dumbledore seems to see only Voldemort's traces in >the cave. You're saying he saw traces of R.A.B. as well? Saraquel: I'm in the process of trying to list all the options for the cave, but my time is rather limited at the moment, so don't watch this space too hard! However, I think these two quotes get to the heart of the problems about the cave. Is the potion Voldemort's? Has anyone else been in the cave since Voldemort set it up, and if so who? Having said that, I want to comment on Valky's questions. If we assume that the potion has a magical quality that refills itself after it has been drunk, then the potion is Vodemort's. We know from DD's experience that the potion either prompts the drinker to remember/experience something of their own, OR they relive a memory that is stored in the potion. If we now assume that DD was right about what Voldemort would want to know ? i.e. why they were there ? then what DD experienced was the reason why the previous thief of the horcrux,( who drank the potion before DD) was there. I know this is convoluted, but hopefully you are still with me. It makes sense, that Voldemort would store the reason why the person was there in the refillable potion. He could then drink it ? presumably he takes the antidote with him ? and discover at his leisure, how/why his defences were breached. The unfortunate drinker of the potion, according to Voldemort's original plan, becomes an inferi or is simply killed by the inferi. If that is what happens, then DD is party to the motivations of the previous potion drinker ? either RAB or RAB's accomplice. I have a lurking suspicion which will not go away, however hard I try, which puts Snape in the cave. This has so many implications and must surely give us OFH!Snape, unless the whole cave incident is a training exercise for Harry. OK, at this point, I can quite understand if you tune out ? but I just want to take this scenario a little further. If they are Snape's memories, then DD has possibly learned something more about Snape's motivations than he knew before. His urgency to see Snape and only Snape when they get back to Hogwarts, could also include DD wanting to ask him a few questions about what he has found out by drinking the potion and it could be at the bottom of his pleading voice on the tower ? a sort of, why didn't you tell me, Snape? Saraquel From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 22:04:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:04:37 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141205 Carol earlier : > >> Granted, a number of spells (notably "Obliviate!") are also subject to abuse, but they also have other uses (the MoM protecting itself from notice by Muggles or protecting Muggles from their own traumatic memories). I'm not justifying the use of "Obliviate," which I personally think is as much a violation of subjectivity as Imperio; I'm just saying that there are excellent reasons why Imperio, like Crucio, should never be used. > > a_svirn wrote: > I am genuinely puzzled by this logic. If one spell that violates one's personality has its uses, than why not employ another one? Or is it just because it is mostly used on muggles? Then why not go ahead and use the other three on them? Wait, I know why, it would be a breach of the Stature of Secrecy. > Carol responds: You snipped my reasons why Imperio should not be used, so I'll give them again in short form. (Anyone who wants the full argument should go upthread.) 1) A successful Imperio almost certainly requires the desire of one person to dominate and another. (No such desire is needed to obliviate a memory. The desire can be to help the person whose memory is altered. His thoughts and behavior are not being controlled; he's only forgetting something.) 2) Not only is the will to control others evil in itself in JKR's view (and mine), this power can be terribly abused. As I stated earlier, Mulciber used Imperio to "force countless people to do horrific things." Draco uses it to turn Madam Rosmerta into an accessory to (attempted) murder, and unknown DEs use in HBP it to make a nine-year-old boy attempt to murder his grandparents. For these reasons (desire to control and potential abuse), it is punishable by a life term in Azkaban. I also think that the use of Imperio is addictive and leads to the ruthless desire to dominate others. Look what happened to the Crouches. (I could provide all sorts of evidence for the harm done to both Crouches through the use of all thre Unforgiveables, but particularly this one. Both of them ended up as madmen.) Sorry to repeat, but I think your question was answered by my previous argument. Bad as Obliviate is, it's not a tool of terror and domination like Imperio. It's used by the MoM to keep the WW separated from the Muggle world (not to control or terrorize Muggles but to protect the secrecy they feel is necessary). My point is not to defend Obliviate, which, like almost any spell in the WW, can be used with harmful intent. It's to explain why Imperio is Dark and evil in itself and why it should not be taught at Hogwarts or used under any circumstances. (A student is unlikely to become addicted to modifying other people's memories, but as we see with the Crouches, it's very tempting to go around controlling others, particularly if, like Barty Sr., you desire power.) I will concede, however, that Obliviate should not be part of the Hogwarts curriculum because it, too, can be abused. But that fact does not justify the use of the Imperius Curse. Carol, with apologies for repeating snipped arguments From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 22:21:13 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:21:13 -0000 Subject: Harry and James - only skin deep (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141206 > >>Valky: > > Harry was fundamentally against the Dark Arts at eleven, and he is > told so often how *like his father* he is. > Betsy Hp: Is Harry *really* so like his father? I don't think so. I think Harry *looks* like his father, and he enjoys flying, but beyond that I think they're shown to be completely different people. In fact, I think if some sort of weird time warp happened and PS/SS Harry met up with an eleven year old James while shopping for school robes the two boys would not hit it off. James would annoy Harry by prattling on about how he was going to get his parents to buy him a broom and sneak it onto campus, school rules be damned. And maybe he'd talk about how he hoped he got into Gryffindor. And perhaps he share a funny story he'd heard about Hagrid when Hagrid came to fetch Harry. And then he'd cap it all off by asking Harry what sort of magic his parents liked to practice (not wanting to associate with dirty Dark Magic users). Harry would be so completely disgusted he'd probably plead with the Sorting Hat, "not Gryffindor!" Betsy Hp, going for short From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 22:36:28 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:36:28 -0000 Subject: Motivations for Joining DEs (Was: Bullying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141207 > Carol responds: > You snipped my reasons why Imperio should not be used, so I'll give > them again in short form. (Anyone who wants the full argument should > go upthread.) > > 1) A successful Imperio almost certainly requires the desire of one > person to dominate and another. (No such desire is needed to obliviate > a memory. The desire can be to help the person whose memory is > altered. His thoughts and behavior are not being controlled; he's only > forgetting something.) > Or, I quite agree that Imperio implies the desire to dominate. However, Obliviate implies the RIGHT to dominate. Personally, I find it infinitely more disturbing. Who's awarded wizards with the divine right to decide what another person is allowed to remember? And what is it if not domination it it's most dangerous and self-righteous form? a_svirn From rh64643 at appstate.edu Wed Oct 5 18:36:38 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:36:38 -0000 Subject: Possible Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rmiller3rd" wrote: > I was just thinking about possible horcruxes, (forgive me if I'm > missing something, I don't have the books handy and haven't read all > the messages so I'm not sure if someone has already proposed it), how > about the cursed necklace Harry sees Draco looking at in Borgin & > Burkes near the beginning of CoS? Has that been proposed as one? A > necklace that kills muggles who wear it might be just what LV would > find funny. Just a thought. truthbeauty1: I see what you are saying, but I don't believe it is really likely. When Katie Bell is injured by the necklace it is turned into Snape and I am sure Dumbledore gave it a look over. I dont believe that Dumbledore wouldnt have noticed had it been a horcrux. However, if you take the E.S.E Snape position, I guess he could have done something to it that Dumbledore wouldnt have noticed anything. But I.M.O the necklace is not a horcrux. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 22:38:00 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:38:00 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic (was Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141209 > bboyminn wrote: > > I'm going to add a side comment to this discussion, something I bring > up everytime Dark Magic/Dark Arts are discussed. There is a lot of > /bad/ magic that people are assuming is /dark/ magic when the truth is > that there is very little magic in the books that is specifically > designated as 'Dark'. zgirnius: I think this is a very good point. We're all talking about what Dark Arts are, why they are Dark, etc., but do we know which magic that we have seen is Dark? This would seem to be a useful step in the discussion. Seeing what the "officially Dark" magic is might help us to see a distinction. bboymin: > My theory says that there is some distructive element to truly Dark > Magic. In some way it consumes something tangible or spiritual that > the Dark Wizard has no right to use. For example, the New Body Potion > that Voldemort creates in GoF is clearly Dark Magic because it is > distructive and consumptive. It coerces Flesh from a servant, it > steals bone from a grave, and it steals blood from an enemy which is > Harry. So, in a sense, I agree that Dark Magic tarnishes the soul. It > diminishes the Dark Wizard because he is spiritually diminished by > consuming things he has no right to consume. zgirnius: OK. I think we can safely call this magic Dark, yes. It would also seem to be something you'd never even have a use for if you hadn't previously created a Horcrux. bboyminn: > But by the same token I don't necessarily think that the Forbidden > Curses are examples of Dark Magic, nor do I think that Sectumsempra is > necessarily Dark Magic. They are definitely BAD, but that doesn't make > them 'Dark'. Keep in mind you could use a Dark Spell for a good > purpose, and that wouldn't change the fact that it was Dark. zgirnius: Well, it depends on what we decide to use as criteria. I would tend to believe that all four of these are Dark, and here's why. The Unforgivables are introduced by Crouch!Moody in DADA. Since they are not "Defense" spells, I would conclude this is because they are Dark Arts against which one must learn to defend. Also, we do see some commentary by experts like DD which suggests that he does not like the idea of using the Unforgivables even in a good cause. (Like when the MoM permitted Aurors to use them). I would argue that Sectumsempra is probably Dark, because Snape says so. As an expert practitioner of DA/DADA and the inventor of that spell, he ought to be considered an authority. (In Chapter 24, HBP: "Who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic?"). bboymin: > Again, if you look very carefully at the books, very very little magic > is actually classified as Dark; far far less than people are assuming. > zgirnius: OK, the list so far, see above for justifications: 1) The magic which restored Voldemort's body. 2) The Unforgivables 3) Sectumsempra More Dark magic: 4) Horcruxes. DD and Slughorn agree on this one. 5) Possession. It's not officially stated, but Voldemort's the only one who does it in the books, which I think supports adding it to the list. Also, it is like Imperius, only worse. In addition to taking away the victim's free will it saps their life-force and hastens their death. 6) The magic which creates Inferi. I think this is not said in so many words. But again it comes up in DADA class. It is something we are told "Dark" wizards do. And it is something done to murder victims. 7) Powerful Curses such as that on the Ring Horcrux and the necklace that nearly kills Katie Bell would seem to probably also be Dark. When asked by Harry why Snape, not Pomfrey, treated Katie Bell, DUmbledore explains "Professor Snape knows much more about the Dark Arts than Madam Pomfrey". That's all I can come up with... From mattcbuff at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 18:37:39 2005 From: mattcbuff at yahoo.com (Matthew Buffington) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:37:39 -0000 Subject: Memories in a Bottle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141210 When going through posts about Harry possibly talking with a portrait DD in book 7, I had an idea. In GoF and OotP, DD always retrieves his own memories by putting his wand to his head, pulling the memory out, and then putting the memory in the pensive. However in HBP, DD retrieves the memories from bottles. Of course, this makes sense when the memory belongs to someone else. But the memory where LV asks DD again to work at Hogwarts, DD retrieves his own memory from a bottle and not from his own head. Why? Is it possible that DD might have stored up some of his memories at Hogwarts so that Harry could return and check them out for himself? Where could these memories be stored at? Could we then find out the real reason that DD trusted Snape so much? I would appreciate any thoughts. Matt From rh64643 at appstate.edu Wed Oct 5 20:20:21 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:20:21 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141211 I'm sure you guys all know the feeling of re reading the books for like the 6th time and you just notice a sort of feeling that the book conveys that you have never noticed before. Well I had that the other day. I was re reading S.S and I got to the part where Harry meets the Weasleys for the first time.(Like one of my favorite parts bc I love the Wealeys soo much) Well I noticed a line where Percy is responding to the twins taunting him. " 'Oh, shut up,' said Percy the Prefect."(pg 96 in the S.S) The way Percy is singled out by Harry this early on is odd to me. >From the get go, it is like Percy isnt quite a Weasley. He isnt "Percy the Oldest", Or "Percy the twins brother" He is Percy the Prefect. Now I think it is pretty obvious to anyone reading the books that Percy does try to distance himself from the family, but I dont think I realized how good of a job he was doing until I read that. Int that same book, Fred and George have to force Percy to spend Christmas day with Harry and the rest of the Weasleys in Gryfindor common room. For the rest of his duration at Hogwarts, he only acknowledges his family when they do something glorious. (i.e Rons victory over McGonagals chess set, his involvment in the chamber adventure) Percy only shows concern when something about his family might bring him shame. (i.e. he forces Ginny to take medicine because she is looking pale, his anger when he sees Ron going into the girls bathroom) When Percy starts working for the ministry his true colors are shown. Another thing I found odd, was as I am re reading the G.O.F, the whole "Weatherby" fiasco. Isnt it odd that although Crouch Sr. obviously knows Arthur personally, he cant get his son's last name correct? ( this conversation goes on in pgs.90- 92 in the U.S edition of G.O.F)I believe that this is all proof of how successful Percy has been at distancing himself from his humble, eccentric, loving, good, family. I dont really know what all this means, but I found it all very interesting. I also use this to argue that Ron's percieved ambition is in no way comparable to that of his older brother, as some have argued. Also, perhaps there are some parallels between this portrayal of Percy, and that of Tom Riddle. (i.e. only claiming the aspects of his family that are glorious, such as heir of slytherin, literally changing his name, wiping out all reminders of his family) These are just my kind of jumbled thoughts. I would love to see if anyone else had any thoughts on this topic. If this topic has already been discusses I am sorry, but I havent really seen it soo far. truthbeauty1 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 22:54:25 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:54:25 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141212 > >>julie: > > > > it's pretty clear Harry's anger and > > hatred of Snape are out of proportion > > to anything Snape is doing to him > > (or has done to him in the past). > > > >>eggplant: > I must say that strikes me as an extraordinary thing to say. Think > for a moment of the person you hate the most in the entire world, > whatever injustice that person has inflicted on you I very much > doubt it could compare to what Harry received at the hands of > Snape since he was one year old. Betsy Hp: Let's see.... He attempted to save the lives of the Potter family. He succeeded in saving Harry's life at least twice. He saved Harry's friends' lives. Oh, he *did* force Harry to pay attention in class and do his homework. And he *does* have a tendency to sneer. The knave! > >>Julie: > > > > he [Harry] is 'clinging' to his notion > > that Snape is at fault for Sirius's death, > > just because that belief is so emotionally > > satisfying. > > > >>eggplant: > It may be emotionally satisfying to believe it, but that doesn't > mean it's unreasonable to think it is at least particularly true. > And if Snape wasn't 100% responsible for Sirius's death he > certainly was for Dumbledore's. Betsy Hp: Even *Harry* recognizes that his hatred is a bit beyond logical. *Harry* doesn't think Snape really had anything to do with Sirius's death, and he doesn't yet know that by the end of the school year Snape will kill Dumbledore. So at this point Harry is being unreasonable and he knows it. > >>Julie: > > > > [Harry] remains stubbornly negative throughout > > HBP, to the point that he argues with > > Dumbledore over fetching Snape when he *knows > > full well* that Snape has already saved > > Dumbledore from one horcrux curse. > > > >>eggplant: > Yes Dumbledore said Snape saved his life from the Horcrux curse, > but Harry had every reason to believe the Headmaster was mistaken > about that. > Betsy Hp: Wait, so Snape *didn't* save Dumbledore from the ring curse? Who did then, and why didn't Harry share this knowledge with Dumbledore? > >>Julie: > > > > Harry really hates Snape. I mean, he really, > > REALLY hates Snape. He would be very happy > > if Snape were dead, no less. > > > >>eggplant: > That is true, by the end of book 6 Harry's hatred of Snape equals > his hatred of Voldemort, and with good reason. Betsy Hp: But Julie's not talking about the *end* of the book. She's talking about the beginning. So what's the good reason at the *beginning* of the book for Harry to hate Snape as much or more than Voldemort? > >>Julie: > > > > His hatred of Snape mirrors Snape's > > hatred of James > > > >>eggplant: > The two are just not comparable, James bullied Snape and Snape > bullied Harry, but in addition Snape played a key part in the > murder of Harry's father, mother and Godfather, and Harry watched > Snape kill Dumbledore and push him out of a tower with his own two > eyes. It's the difference between evil and mischief. Betsy Hp: Again, you're mixing up the *end* of the book with the beginning. Harry hates Snape *before* he finds out about Snape being the eavesdropper and Dumbledore's death. I do agree that the comparison isn't perfect. Frankly, I see much more logic in Snape's hatred of James than Harry's hatred of Snape. But the mirror is there, so I think they can be compared. > >>Julie: > > > > Harry doesn't acknowledge or care that > > Snape has saved his life more than once > > > >>eggplant: > By my count Harry saved Snape's life and that of the entire wizard > world at least 3 times, and Harry is the only one who has a chance > of saving it once more, and Snape still treats Harry like dirt. Betsy Hp: Yes, but living, breathing dirt. Without Snape, Harry wouldn't even be that, and the two other times Harry saved the day (I'm assuming Quirrell and the battle at the DoM?) would never have occurred. Betsy Hp From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 5 23:17:49 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:17:49 -0000 Subject: Harry and James - only skin deep (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141213 >>Valky: > > > > Harry was fundamentally against the Dark Arts at eleven, and he is > > told so often how *like his father* he is. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Is Harry *really* so like his father? I don't think so. I think > Harry *looks* like his father, and he enjoys flying, but beyond that > I think they're shown to be completely different people. Valky: I don't agree with that at all. There has got to be at least a dozen passages in which someone who knew James well says to Harry he speaks like James or thinks like James or does something James would do (other than flying). One example I can think of is in HBP when Dumbledore tells Harry he has just 'Spoken like your mother and fathers son and Sirius true godson.' but that is surely not the least of them. In POA there are a fair few comments about it and isn't there a remark about Harry showing mercy to Pettigrew and how it was James-like, I am also fairly sure that in GOF and early in OOtP it gets mentioned too. I'd love to find all the quotes but that will have to wait for now. It might just take too long. Betsy: > In fact, I > think if some sort of weird time warp happened and PS/SS Harry met > up with an eleven year old James while shopping for school robes the > two boys would not hit it off. James would annoy Harry by prattling > on about how he was going to get his parents to buy him a broom and > sneak it onto campus, school rules be damned. Valky: Well yeah it's not beyond reason that James would want to sneak a broomstick into school, but there's no proof that James is spoiled to the point where he'd be telling his parents what to do. Sirius speaks very highly of the Potters, and says they adopted him as a second son, it just seems a leap to be thinking that JKR sketched them in the image of the Malfoys or the Dursleys. Betsy: > And maybe he'd talk > about how he hoped he got into Gryffindor. And perhaps he share a > funny story he'd heard about Hagrid when Hagrid came to fetch > Harry. Valky: Hmm that's all possible too, but what could James, who befriended Peter Pettigrew, really say that was so offensive about Hagrid, who also became one of his trusted friends. Betsy: > And then he'd cap it all off by asking Harry what sort of > magic his parents liked to practice (not wanting to associate with > dirty Dark Magic users). Valky: LOL, that is funny, but it's against canon, he can't very well have had those kind of prejudices against people and befriend Sirius. James obviously didn't base anything on the parents of people he met, that Sirius was James best friend is irrefutable proof that he was interested in the person themselves no matter where they came from. I'll admit I can imagine James boasting a bit like Draco did in Madam Malkins, but they most definitely would not have been the same boy in different skin. > Betsy Hp, going for short Good idea Betsy. That was so much less tiring. Valky From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 23:48:31 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:48:31 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic (was Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141214 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > ... > > > > My theory says that there is some distructive element to truly > > Dark Magic. In some way it consumes something tangible or > > spiritual that the Dark Wizard has no right to use. > > > ... > > bboyminn: > > But by the same token I don't necessarily think that the Forbidden > > Curses are examples of Dark Magic, nor do I think that > > Sectumsempra is necessarily Dark Magic. They are definitely BAD, > > but that doesn't make them 'Dark'. ... > > zgirnius: > Well, it depends on what we decide to use as criteria. I would tend > to believe that all four of these are Dark, and here's why. The > Unforgivables are introduced by Crouch!Moody in DADA. Since they are > not "Defense" spells, I would conclude this is because they are Dark > Arts against which one must learn to defend. ... > > I would argue that Sectumsempra is probably Dark, because Snape says > so. ... (In Chapter 24, HBP: "Who would have thought you knew such > Dark Magic?"). > > bboymin: > > Again, if you look very carefully at the books, very very little > > magic is actually classified as Dark; far far less than people are > > assuming. > > > > zgirnius: > OK, the list so far, see above for justifications: > > 1) The magic which restored Voldemort's body. > 2) The Unforgivables > 3) Sectumsempra > > More Dark magic: > 4) Horcruxes. DD and Slughorn agree on this one. > 5) Possession. ... > 6) The magic which creates Inferi. ... > 7) Powerful Curses such as that on the Ring Horcrux and the necklace > that nearly kills Katie Bell ... > > That's all I can come up with... bboyminn: I would mostly agree with your list. By my point, my theory, is that it is the nature of the creation that makes Dark Magic 'dark' and not the nature of it's use. Also, we need to make a distinction between 'Dark' with a capital 'D' and 'dark' with a small 'd'. Dark with a capital 'D' defines a class of magic which by the nature of its creation is, in some way, destructive. Again, I emphasize the CREATION. Magic that is 'dark' with a small 'd', is magic that is dark in the evilness of its nature, referring more to its application rather than creation. Dark Magic/Dark Arts are a specific classification of a special type of magic, whereas dark magic is general magic of no redeeming quality, it is generally evil in nature. So, I agree that Sectumsempra is dark (with a small 'd') magic, but I don't think it necessarily qualifies as Dark (with a capital 'D') magic. Whereas the Blood-Flesh-Bone Spell is both Dark and dark. This is really just one of my theories. It is supported in the books only by the vaguest interpretations. But it seems a reasonable interpretation that a very evil wizard could live a terrible life without ever engaging in truly Dark Magic/Arts. I feel that true Dark Magic/Arts has to have something very specific in its nature to classify it as Dark. It can't just be used for evil, because we see magic that is not classfied as 'Dark' being used for evil purposes. That leads me to conclude that there is something special and unique in Dark Magic/Arts, and I conclude that it's creation is a destructive process of some type. Again, Dark Magic/Art are spoken of as a very specific thing, a specific class or group, and not just as generally evil/not_evil, or bad/not_bad. Which leads me to investigate the nature of truly Dark Magic/Art and reach the conclusions I do. Really, it's just a thought. STeve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 01:14:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:14:48 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141215 > Betsy Hp: > Let's see.... He attempted to save the lives of the Potter family. Alla: Erm... even if he did attempt to do so, he did nothing more than any half-decent person is supposed to do after he put Potters in danger in the first place, IMO. But I keep thinking about it and I know it is right there, but I cannot remember. Could you remind me when Snape actually did attempt to save Potters? I mean, I remember Fudge's quote of course that Dumbledore had a number of useful spies and one of them tipped DD off that Voldemort is after Potters, but he never names Snape, right? And "spies" actually means that a different spy could have tipped him off. Where else is is stated for a fact that Snape made an attempt to save Potters? Pretty please? I mean, Dumbledore in HBP said that Snape felt remorse about Potters' death, but did DD anywhere in HBP actually says that Snape attempted to save James and Lily? Thanks. Alla. From firefightermichelle at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 01:33:19 2005 From: firefightermichelle at yahoo.com (Michelle) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:33:19 -0000 Subject: More PTSD and also Intention Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141216 Eggplant wrote: It's remarkable that Harry isn't suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after all the hell he's been through, but Snape? All Snape has experienced is that minor little bullying incident many years ago; and if something like that can send him into a lifetime emotional funk then he is quite a wimp. Harry is made of stronger stuff. Myra: Yes. Maybe Snape is just weak, and Harry is a lot stronger. Not everyone deals the same. Harry has to be strong to retains his sanity and stuff after everything he's been through. Michelle: I completely disagree with you Eggplant. JKR has also shown us a cowering Snape in a corner while a woman (we presume his mother) is being yelled at/bullied by another man (her father? Snape's father?). CHildhood trauma (physical, psychological) can stay with a person their entire life and manifest itself in different ways. I am severely arachnophobic because of childhood psychological trauma. Of course, different people react to different things in different ways. Harry has been through quite a bit, but he CHOOSES to find the good and truth in his situations. No it was not good that Sirius died, and by all rights, Harry could've mourned all through HBP and been a big blubbering mess. Instead, he chose to see the truth and reality of the situation. Sirius died and that sucks, but Sirius died fighting to protect him (Harry) and even though Sirius died, Harry had to continue with his ultimate "quest". So who is stronger? Harry or Snape? I think they are both strong, but for different reasons. It cannot have been easy for Snape to be a double agent until Voldemort was Vapormorted or since his return. Of course there is the eternal debate about whether he is (insert many, many acronyms here), but the fact remains, he has to have quite a bit of inner strength to maintain his roles in both camps. My point in all this ... PTSD is non-discriminatory. 'Strong' people, 'weak' people, it doesn't matter, all it takes is the right set of circumstances. For me it was a gun in my face and then being tied up and put in a closet. For many FDNY firefighters, it was pulling their brothers out of rubble for weeks on end. Eggplant, do you think they are weak people? And for my next topic ... Intention in Magic. I think intent has A LOT to do with the power of a spell and its effects. I believe the reason Harry couldn't pull off Cruciatus is because while at the moment he really didn't like Bellatrix, he does not have the capacity to loathe and hate and have all the feelings that are required to create an effective cruciatus curse. Harry doesn't have the capacity for BEING evil, therefore, he can't do something that is purely evil. Sectumsempra isn't necessarily an evil curse, per se, it probably has good use when carving turkeys at Thanksgiving, but the intent of the user makes it bad. Consider a "real life" example. A person goes into a store with a gun and takes the money from the cash register and then kills the clerk. Is he bad? By general consensus, heck yes! Another person is sitting at home one day when another person breaks in and attempts to rape his daughter. The father reaches into a drawer, pulls out a gun and shoots and kills the intruder. Is he bad? By general consensus, no he was protecting his daughter. Both people killed someone. They both committed MURDER. One is seen as a criminal, one is hailed as a hero. They both committed the SAME act ... but their intentions were different. Same goes for the wizarding world. Fred and George, in my opinion, weren't trying the HURT Dudley by dropping the Ton-Tongue Toffy, they were trying to have a laugh. Was it still mean? Sure, but it wasn't INTENDED to be mean. Had they MEANT to HURT Dudley, would anything different have happened? Perhaps they would have dropped more. So was Snape's INTENT to AK DD, or was it to make it LOOK like he AK'd DD? Only a year and 9 months to go to find out! Michelle, who intends to stop typing now! :) From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 6 01:36:37 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:36:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Forbidden Education/ Identifying Enemies/Twins References: Message-ID: <00ee01c5ca16$6814c4d0$587e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141217 Samwise the grey: > We don't know that for certain. I would find it depressing that Lupin > is the only werewolf to go to Hogwarts. Dumbledore and his staff have > proven they are at least tolerent enough to allow a werewolf to both > learn and teach. It's proven that there are certainly none currently > using the Shack during Harry's 3rd year. That doesn't rule out 2 > possibilties: Magpie: I'd add a third. Not all werewolves are bitten in childhood. The one in St. Mungo's is an adult. > Finwitch: > > Not tie it to Dudley's sins? I must disagree. The swollen tongue was a > direct consequence of Dudley eating a stolen piece of candy, despite of > his parents telling him not to eat any candy (or donuts for that > matter) - and actually forbidding him something for the first time in > his life. In addition, Dudley knew (via Harry) that magic is real. Magpie: The twins taught Dudley not to eat anything a wizard brought into the house. Why would it teach him anything about impulse control or obeying Mummy and Daddy in the Muggle World? That's certainly not the intent the twins had. The twins wanted to try out their candy. They didn't want Dudley to lose weight or learn impulse control or obedience to his parents--or not to 'steal' candy. (Though this line of thought reminds me of a similar storyline on the show Weeds, with the joke being that it was incredibly cruel you would have to do to slip something into a dieter's stash of food to teach them not to be a piggy.) Finwitch 2) Dudley does not > hit Harry, even if Harry deliberately annoys him with that Dudders- > business... So he's at least ensuing *some* self-control (though not > with poor Mark Evans). I think it's good for him, actually. Magpie: Well, of course not with poor Mark Evans. Dudley hasn't learned not to be a bully at all, he's just smart enough not to pick on somebody who's got a weapon and he's learned Harry has one. (He's defiant to Harry but doesn't hit him.) It's the same thing as the food. Dudley learned to be scared of wizards. I don't think it had any more general character-building effects. -m From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Oct 6 02:26:56 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:26:56 -0000 Subject: DIY Spell making Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141218 How do wizards and witches make a new spell? I was of the opinion spells were something supernatural that existed in nature and just needed to be DISCOVERED and tapped into. Now I am thinking a devious mind can come up with a new creative (or destructive) spell like a hacker comes up with new viruses or trojans. Or are spells more like coming up with recipes ... a pinch of that spell, a touch of that and .. ooh, what happens if I bring this in. Do It Yourself (DIY) Spells ... I wonder who will show a flare for it in the trio. - Or have the twins been doing it all along? -aussie- From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 6 02:31:36 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:31:36 EDT Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141219 Lupinlore: > Is Harry in serious moral danger? I don't know. If he were a > Jedi, he would be. But he's not a Jedi, and this isn't long, long > ago in a galaxy far, far away, and I'm not at all sure that what > we have seen in him and his attitudes/actions constitutes being in > mortal peril of Darkness in JKR's world. Jen: I don't get why temptation is only a Star Wars theme! We're in agreement Harry is not the next Anakin, but that doesn't mean temptation won't be a theme in Book 7. So far Harry thinks pretty much like you do, he saw what happened with the Sectumsempra when he used it on Draco and felt remorse, but there he is, still trying to use it on Snape plus a couple of Crucios. I don't think this qualifies as serious moral danger yet, but I do think the more he gives in to hatred, the less that power which saves him from Voldemort will be operational in protecting him. Julie: I think Star Wars comparisons are a moot point anyway. George Lucas "borrowed" his themes straight from classic literature (which he freely admitted). The hero tempted by evil but ultimately choosing good is a *human* theme that has been present probably since Neanderthals could scratch out stick figure stories on cave walls. Certainly it's been a theme since the advent of written language. No hero I've ever heard of achieved his/her status without facing adversity and without being tempted at least once to giving in to the easier path. (Though if Snape mutters "Harry, I am your father" in Book 7, then I might be persuaded to reconsider! ;-) Lupinlore: > Let us look to the figure who, by common consensus, is viewed as > the loadstone of Light Magic in the Potterverse, Dumbledore. DD > shows no sign of thinking that Harry is on the road to darkness. > Far from it, he is serenely confident that Harry is not in danger > of such a fall. We don't know if he is aware of Harry's attempted > crucio at the MoM. If he is, however, he seems not to be at all > troubled by it. Nor does he say anything to Harry regarding the > Sectumsempra episode. Jen: Funny you should mention this, because *Snape* is the one most aware of Harry's attempts at dark magic. Whether anyone knew about the incident in the MOM with Bella is pretty tough to say. Harry, at least, never told anyone. The Sectumsempra I feel certain Dumbledore didn't know about. Hermione, our expositional mouthpiece, told Harry Snape wouldn't have wanted Dumbledore to know about the potion book. And Dumbledore was gone for the chase across the grounds, when Harry really started to get in the groove with his new, cool spells! That Snape is being set up to address this issue, rather than Dumbledore, is a very good choice in my book. JKR has been working toward a parallel between Snape and Harry since the Pensieve incident in OOTP, and she cemented their similarities by allowing Harry and Ron to relate to the HBP as a young guy much like themselves. Dumbledore, too 'noble' to use any type of dark magic, is out of Harry's league on this one. Much better to learn this from a person who allowed hatred, resentment and the study of dark arts to ruin what may have been a promising life at one time. Julie: I agree. At first I was a bit bothered by the fact that Dumbledore never chided Harry for his more recent misdeeds, both snooping into Snape's memories in the Pensieve, and using Sectumsempra curse on Draco. But this is standard Dumbledore. He doesn't need to chide or punish Harry--that's why he has Snape! Snape-- and to a lesser extent, McGonagall--acts as the disciplinarian, and Dumbledore leaves Snape to play that role since he has his own critical part to play as Harry's mentor. And he let's Snape play it the way Snape wants, because Snape not only delivers the actual punishments--detentions, etc--but provides a perfect example of how Harry could end up if he doesn't eventually take those lessons to heart. I'm not convinced Dumbledore is in the dark about much that goes on with Harry though. He may know about the Crucio curse, in which case he would also know Harry couldn't do it. He did know about the Sectumsempra, but Snape is already punishing Harry for that, so why does Dumbledore need to say anything? And given the eventual result of Harry not learning Occlumency--Sirius's death--Dumbledore must figure Harry learned his lesson there. (Even if Harry is blaming Snape for that death, he knows he had a part in everything that led up to that confrontation with Bella too. If he had taken Occlumency seriously and not laid out the welcome mat for Voldemort, things might have been different.) I'm pretty sure part of Dumbledore's "Severus, please.." included not only getting the DEs away and keeping Hogwarts students safe, along with Draco and Harry (physically), but perhaps also finishing the final part in training Harry, which may have included stopping Harry from doing any Unforgivables during those hyper-emotional moments after Dumbledore's death. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Oct 6 02:50:58 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:50:58 -0000 Subject: How long was Snape a DE? was: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141220 colebiancardi: > I don't know if it has been discussed, but I do have a thought or two > on the subject. What does DD mean when he tells the courtroom in GoF > that Snape *came back*? Sorry, don't have my book in front of me, but > I believe this is what he said....Did Snape start out working for DD, > get seduced by LV, became a DE spy, had second thoughts and turned > back to DD? houyhnhnm: We are told next to nothing about Snape's relationship with the staff and headmaster when he was a student at Hogwart's except for Slughorn's "...I taught him. I thought I knew him." What was teenaged Snape's relationship with Dumbledore? Where was Dumbledore when Snape was being bullied by James and Sirius? Why did Snape keep Lupin's secret for 14-15 years in spite of his hatred for the Marauders? I will be very disappointed if these questions are not answered in book 7. Meanwhile, I can only speculate. I think Snape must have started out as DD's Man in spite of his fascination with the Dark Arts. Perhaps Snape, whose real father was not only possibly abusive, but a Muggle as well, saw Dumbledore as the father he deserved. Maybe going over to Voldemort was a way of getting back at Dumbledore for what Snape perceived as a major betrayal--DD's handling of the Prank would be a likely candidate. From kjones at telus.net Thu Oct 6 04:16:37 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:16:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How long was Snape a DE? was: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4344A525.1090406@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141221 colebiancardi wrote: > > Guru asks: Has anyone discussed the idea that > > Snape never was really a DE, that he was a spy when he joined? > > What does DD mean when he tells the courtroom in GoF > that Snape *came back*? Did Snape start out working for DD, > get seduced by LV, became a DE spy, had second thoughts and turned > back to DD? > colebiancardi KJ writes: From what we are given on Snape's behaviour and attitude about the prank and information on his age, I suspect that he was a miserable and bitter person from 5'th year to 7'th. He had narrowly escaped from the prank, the Marauders were not punished and he was obviously told, for whatever reason, to keep it to himself. Presumably,he was still being harassed by James and Sirius when the opportunity presented itself and he was undoubtedly retaliating, if not actually beginning the agression. Because of his late birthday, he would have been nineteen when he graduated. We know that there are no wizarding universities, so he would have either gone to work, like Riddle did, at a place like Borgin & Burkes, or an apothocary, or apprenticed to someone. JKR says he was 35 or 36 in GoF, which would make him 37 in Ootp. He had been teaching for 14 yrs, which would make him 22 yrs when he started. He would have been 23 after the first term. So, since whatever friends he had, were or became DEs one can reasonably assume that for whatever reason, he became one as well, willingly. I think that is the period that Dumbledore refers to as having been "good" and then becoming "bad", he returned to the good. Assuming he was the spy who provided the warning to the Order about the Potters, he would have turned himself in to Dumbledore between two years and six weeks prior to the Potters' demise. There seems some confusion as to when the Potters actually were informed and went into hiding. One converation in the books places them going into hiding just after Harry's christening, and another conversation places it a week before they were killed. Most reasonably, it would seem that Snape was a loyal DE for 2 years at least and possibly a bit longer. Considering Snape's general attitudes and bitterness, I can't imagine him at the age of nineteen being a volunteer as a spy to the point of becoming a fake DE. I can imagine him, like Harry, being horrified at what he had become and asking Dumbledore for help to save the Potters. He would not have gone to Dumbledore otherwise. Dumbledore recruited him as a spy. Fortunately for him, Voldemort vaporized himself after he had been serving as a spy for about 15 months. I think that his explanation that Voldemort had sent him to Dumbledore to apply for work was factual. It must have been a very tense few months going back and forth. Just my understanding of it. KJ From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 11:33:15 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:33:15 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141222 Alla Wrote: > Where else is is stated for a fact that Snape made an attempt to > save Potters? Pretty please? > > I mean, Dumbledore in HBP said that Snape felt remorse about > Potters' death, but did DD anywhere in HBP actually says that Snape > attempted to save James and Lily? Saraquel: Well there's an interesting quote from PoA (UK ed p265)where Snape enters the room in the shrieking shack - 'Like father like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck, you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black -' Up thread I wrote something on this. I quoted the whole speech because it needs to be seen in context. The implication to me, is that Snape personally warned James that Sirius was a spy (that he was mistaken is not the point here)and in Snape's eyes James ignored the advice and ended up dead. I proposed that Snape sent a message, probably via his patronus, telling the Potter's that Voldemort knew where they were and was coming for them, and that their secret keeper had blabbed. Snape would have thought that Sirius was the secret keeper. OK, this is interpretation and not strictly stated in canon but I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. Saraquel From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 11:54:33 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:54:33 -0000 Subject: DIY Spell making In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > How do wizards and witches make a new spell? > > I was of the opinion spells were something supernatural that existed > in nature and just needed to be DISCOVERED and tapped into. > > Now I am thinking a devious mind can come up with a new creative (or > destructive) spell like a hacker comes up with new viruses or trojans. > > Or are spells more like coming up with recipes ... a pinch of that > spell, a touch of that and .. ooh, what happens if I bring this in. > > Do It Yourself (DIY) Spells ... I wonder who will show a flare for it > in the trio. - Or have the twins been doing it all along? > -aussie- Saraquel: I've puzzled about this one too. I found it quite strange that Harry could use the sectumsempra spell without beforehand, knowing what it did. This would imply that the incantation itself somehow contains the magic, but that would be refuted by the comments that Crouch!moody makes in GoF about the AK curse, where just saying it is not enough. The only way I've explained it to myself is that Harry was feeling the appropriate feeling for the spell when he said it, so that it worked by accident, so to speak. I must admit that I found the sectumsempra episode quite unbelievable because of this. A spell seems to me to be a manifestation of the relationship between desire/intention, feelings and sound. There is a lot of stuff in history and in some cultures to the present, about names, and how they hold the essence of the object named. I sort of imagined that you would think of what you wanted to do, and then try and home in on the specific feeling required to achieve that, and refine it until you had it as pure as possible, and then allow it to express itself through your mouth, and out would come the verbal part of the spell. This would account for the need to refine it, as you would first have to really focus in on exactly what you were trying to achieve and match it up to the sound/words. But that seems so personal, I'm not sure how, using that process, you would be able to de-personalise it. Sometimes you just watch yourself and think - am I really writing this :-) Saraquel From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Oct 6 12:42:19 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:42:19 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141224 > Alla Wrote: > > Where else is is stated for a fact that Snape made an attempt to > > save Potters? Pretty please? > > > > I mean, Dumbledore in HBP said that Snape felt remorse about > > Potters' death, but did DD anywhere in HBP actually says that > Snape > > attempted to save James and Lily? > OK, my contribution is nowhere near as impressive as Saraquel's (i'm seriously impressed with that one!), but I would just like to remind everyone that in PS/SS, Snape tries to prevent Quirrel from killing Harry. DD tells Harry it is due to Snape's life debt to James. Surely it then follows that IF Snape had been pre-warned of the events at GH, then surely he would have acted to save James (why would he feel honour bound to protect Harry, but not James - who was actually owed the life debt). The question is - did Snape know what would happen at GH? Since it was Snape who actually told Voldemort of the prophecy in the first place, it seems a fair assumption that Snape would be involved in prophecy related matters after this. If you generate an idea at work, you'd be pretty annoyed if you weren't involved in seeing it to fruition!! Brothergib From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 13:47:59 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:47:59 -0000 Subject: Memories in a Bottle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141225 Matt: > Is it possible that DD might have stored up some of his memories at > Hogwarts so that Harry could return and check them out for himself? > Where could these memories be stored at? Could we then find out the > real reason that DD trusted Snape so much? Finwitch: Interesting idea. 'Dumbledore is only gone from this school when none here are loyal to him.' (Don't forget it's Dumbledore himself who first said that). Now, I understand he stores these memories in bottles probably among other bottles in plain sight. (classic trick, that.) Where would he leave them with? My guess is *Aberforth* - who would ask questions about bottles in a *bar*? Any other place and it would be more curious. (Although Trelawney's hidden bottle raises a question - was she REALLY just drinking? What if, in that bottle, was the memory about Snape and Aberforth?) Anyway, I want Aberforth in a decent role in the 7th book. Why tell us Albus Dumbledore has this brother, mention him twice, then have Harry sense 'some familiarity' with the bartender of Hog's Head... Besides, we just got to have a Dumbledore in the story still - but I suppose his first name will be Aberforth from now on. Finwitch From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 15:20:14 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:20:14 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic (was Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141226 > bboyminn: > > I would mostly agree with your list. By my point, my theory, is that > it is the nature of the creation that makes Dark Magic 'dark' and not > the nature of it's use. Also, we need to make a distinction between > 'Dark' with a capital 'D' and 'dark' with a small 'd'. > > Dark with a capital 'D' defines a class of magic which by the nature > of its creation is, in some way, destructive. Again, I emphasize the > CREATION. Magic that is 'dark' with a small 'd', is magic that is dark > in the evilness of its nature, referring more to its application > rather than creation. Dark Magic/Dark Arts are a specific > classification of a special type of magic, whereas dark magic is > general magic of no redeeming quality, it is generally evil in nature. > > So, I agree that Sectumsempra is dark (with a small 'd') magic, but I > don't think it necessarily qualifies as Dark (with a capital 'D') > magic. Whereas the Blood-Flesh-Bone Spell is both Dark and dark. > > This is really just one of my theories. It is supported in the books > only by the vaguest interpretations. But it seems a reasonable > interpretation that a very evil wizard could live a terrible life > without ever engaging in truly Dark Magic/Arts. I feel that true Dark > Magic/Arts has to have something very specific in its nature to > classify it as Dark. It can't just be used for evil, because we see > magic that is not classfied as 'Dark' being used for evil purposes. > That leads me to conclude that there is something special and unique > in Dark Magic/Arts, and I conclude that it's creation is a destructive > process of some type. > Neri: My theory is that what makes dark magic *Dark* is INTENTION. That is, the very power of Dark Magic comes from intent of the wizard to harm somebody else, and it won't work at all unless there is an evil intention. So for example, you can kill someone with "Reducto" if you apply it to someone's head, but that doesn't make Reducto Dark. You can levitate a big club with Wingardium Leviosa and then drop it on someone's head, and unless someone is a troll he might get killed, and yet Wingardium Leviosa isn't Dark. This is because Reducto and Leviosa don't require the *intent* to harm in order to work. You can kill somebody with Leviosa by pure accident, without any intention, like Fred and George in OotP levitating a knife and nearly dropping it on Sirius. In contrast, Bella tells us that Crucio won't work unless you want to hurt someone, and even this won't be enough ? you need to actually *enjoy* it. I think this is the principle behind all Dark Magic. We might theorize that Dark Magic draws its very power from harnessing evil feelings and intentions. Using true Dark Magic in an effective way thus proves that the user has an evil intent. This theory has a slight problem with Harry using Sectumsempra on Draco without meaning it. We can solve this by assuming that Sectumsempra is "dark" but not "Dark", but it might be something else. I think Harry's Sectumsempra wouldn't have worked at all if he didn't hate Draco so much. JKR builds Harry's hate for Draco during all of HBP, and in fact during the whole series, and then uses the bathroom incident as a warning: this is what happens to you if you let your hate towards your enemy take hold of you. Neri From dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com Thu Oct 6 15:35:31 2005 From: dc.thorburn at ntlworld.com (Derek Thorburn) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:35:31 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Memories in a Bottle References: Message-ID: <001f01c5ca8b$971703e0$3e781652@thorburn> No: HPFGUIDX 141227 I think you've got something there. I've read one or two JKR interviews over the past two or three months and I think we're in for a "DD's back-story" in book 7 from what she's been saying. Derek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Buffington" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 7:37 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Memories in a Bottle > When going through posts about Harry possibly talking with a portrait > DD in book 7, I had an idea. > In GoF and OotP, DD always retrieves his own memories by putting his > wand to his head, pulling the memory out, and then putting the memory > in the pensive. However in HBP, DD retrieves the memories from > bottles. Of course, this makes sense when the memory belongs to > someone else. But the memory where LV asks DD again to work at > Hogwarts, DD retrieves his own memory from a bottle and not from his > own head. Why? > Is it possible that DD might have stored up some of his memories at > Hogwarts so that Harry could return and check them out for himself? > Where could these memories be stored at? Could we then find out the > real reason that DD trusted Snape so much? > I would appreciate any thoughts. > > Matt > > > > > > > > > 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 eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 6 16:09:36 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:09:36 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141228 "horridporrid03" wrote: > Let's see.... He [Snape] attempted to save > the lives of the Potter family. After he had put the Potter family in danger in the first place. > He succeeded in saving Harry's life at least twice. And as I have pointed out before there are excellent reasons why even a supremely evil Snape would save Harry's life on those occasions, in fact if he had not done exactly that then my evil Snape theory would be blown out of the water. > Even *Harry* recognizes that his hatred is > a bit beyond logical. *Harry* doesn't think > Snape really had anything to do with > Sirius's death I don't believe that is true, I believe Harry is convinced Snape is at least partially responsible for Sirius's death, and if he had seen chapter 2 as we readers had he would have even more reason to think so. > he [Harry] doesn't yet know that by the > end of the school year Snape will kill > Dumbledore. So at this point Harry > is being unreasonable I would not call Harry "unreasonable", I would call him a good judge of character, a much better judge than Dumbledore. If Harry doesn't trust another person even though he has not seen him do anything bad and later it turns out that the person is indeed untruthful then I think Harry should be praised not condemned; I would certainly pay very close attention the next time he says he doesn't trust somebody. > I see much more logic in Snape's > hatred of James than Harry's > hatred of Snape. Despite his flaws in the end James turned out to be a good person, but Snape turned out to be a monster just like Harry thought; so Snape's judgment was poor and Harry's judgment was excellent. > So what's the good reason at the *beginning* > of the book for Harry to hate Snape as much > or more than Voldemort? Harry has always hated Snape and as the series progresses the hate increases, but I don't think he hated him as much as Voldemort at the start of book 6,he did at the end however. And with good reason! > Wait, so Snape *didn't* save Dumbledore > from the ring curse? I don't know for a fact that Snape didn't save Dumbledore, but I do know enough to be very skeptical of such a claim, Harry did too. > Who did then? Neither I nor Harry have any idea, however there are about 6 billion people on the planet and almost every one of them is a more likely candidate than Snape. Eggplant From locadamor526 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 21:47:23 2005 From: locadamor526 at yahoo.com (locadamor526) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:47:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's possible reason to trust Snape! In-Reply-To: <13e.176af5b9.300e477e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141229 I think that maybe the reason for why Dumbledore trusts Snape completely may lie within Snape's childhood. As we've seen previously during Harry's Occlumency lessons with Snape, Snape's childhood was really nasty. Maybe Dumbledore had helped a young Snape thus creating a speacial bond and ensuring Dumbledore Snape's trust. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 19:44:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:44:49 -0000 Subject: DIY Spell making In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141230 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > How do wizards and witches make a new spell? > > I was of the opinion spells were something supernatural that existed > in nature and just needed to be DISCOVERED and tapped into. > > Now I am thinking a devious mind can come up with a new creative (or > destructive) spell like a hacker comes up with new viruses or > trojans. > > Or are spells more like coming up with recipes ... a pinch of that > spell, a touch of that and .. ooh, what happens if I bring this in. > > Do It Yourself (DIY) Spells ... I wonder who will show a flare for > it in the trio. - Or have the twins been doing it all along? > -aussie- bboyminn: I think it is a combination of things; a knowledge of the ancient language upon which spells are based, a deep thorough understanding of magic, and the ability to combine the two in a logical and reasonable way. Not as simple as it sounds. First a knowledge of the ancient language which in our case is Latin, but is not necessarily Latin in other parts of the world. For example, in South Asian, it's probably Sanskrit. Here is an illustration of how knowledge of the ancient language is so critical. Before OotP, I was trying to create my own 'Door Locking' charm (yes, I know I'm not a wizard, it was for a fan fiction). The best I could come up with was - door bolt unbreakable = ostium telum infragilis barricade door unbreakable = obex ostium infragilis I suppose 'door/ostium' 'unbreakable/infragilis' might be enough, but you see how complicated it can get. Keep in mind that I have no knowledge of Latin, I was simply looking words up in a dictionary. JKR has truly studied classic languages and knows the deeper nature of Latin and its proper syntax. To 'lock' a door, she came up with - Colloportus - "colligo" L. to bind together + "portus" L. door Obviously, she came up with a more compact and effective spell than I did. Yes, I know this is a real world example and we are talking about fiction, but it still nicely illustrates how someone who understands the language can create a better spell. So, not only is it a knowledge of the ancient language, but a deep knowledge of how that ancient language is applied to magic. It's not simple grammatical syntax that counts, but the syntax of magic. Then you must understand what it is you want to accomplish relative to magical syntax. For example, we have serveral 'mobilis-' spells like - Mobiliarbus - "mobilis" L. movable + "arbor" L. tree Mobilicorpus - "mobilis" L. movable + "corpus" L. body to create new 'mobilis-' spell you have to understand the nature of the root 'mobili-' and know what extension it can and can not be applied to. We also have spells than end in '-sempra', such as - Rictusempra - "rictus" L. gaping mouth, grin + "sempra" L. always Sectumsempra - "sectus" L. past participle of "seco", to cut "sempra" L. always So, I say it takes a very deep understanding of the nature and construction of magical language. It's not as simple as combining various Latin roots as I did with my own 'door lock' charm. I suspect certain combinations of roots and extension, while making logical sense, would actually be ineffective because they don't make magical sense. Further, we see that intent or underlying motivating force makes a great deal of difference and I suspect when inventing a new spell, that would be very difficult to find. For example, we no that 'Riddikulus' requires a strong underlying humorous thought. The 'Patronus' or 'Expecto Patronum' requires an underlying happy thought to fuel the spell. In the case of the Patronus spell, you can wave your wand as accurately as you want and say the words to perfection, but the spell doesn't work without the underlying 'fueling' thought. And, again, I suspect the new discovery of this underlying 'fuel' would be very difficult. This also seems true of the Unforgivables, especially the Killing Curse, if a very precise underlying intent or 'fuel' is not present, the spell doesn't work (according to fake!Moody). Which brings us to another aspect, in many cases, the wand movement seems to have precise requirements. A newly created or conceived spell may not work until you have worked out the exact nature of the wand movement necessary to invoke the magic. I suspect 'wand movement' is both an art and a science in itself. Not sure what it's worth, but there are my thoughts on the matter. Steve/bboyminn From anurim at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 04:51:58 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The cave potion (was: Destroying the horcruxes) Message-ID: <20051006045158.22982.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141231 Deb (djklaugh) who thinks: > what DD was experiencing while drinking > the potion was Snape's memory that he had relived for DD (much as DD > in GOF makes Harry relive what happened in the graveyard when LV > returned) and thus it became part of DD's memories...and is the > basis of why DD trusts Snape. I can well believe that for DD the > very worst thing he can remember -and what causes him the most > personal pain for having been unable to prevent it- is someone > else's agony, remorse, and helplessness in the face of a monsterous > evil. If we accept that RAB is Regulus (which I am not willing to do, but this doesn't stop me from using the assumption in my theories:) then it is not impossible that the potion had contained his memories too ('Don't make me do it, I don't want to' sounds a lot like the agonising of somebody who was asked to do things he did not have the stomach for). This idea is pretty obvious so it was probably discussed before, I only mention it because I haven't read it yet and I find the action of the potion on the cave quite intriguing. Mira __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From anurim at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 05:07:36 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uses for imperius (was: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051006050736.25622.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141232 --- phoenixgod2000 wrote: > While Crucio or the killing curse are probably more > purely dark, I > can see lots of uses for the imperious curse. how > about the use of > the curse in mental health work, i.e. stop cutting > yourself or stop > starving yourself. I would think that you could use > the curse to > condition people away from bad habits or towards > good habits pretty > easily. While the magical world may not have the > psychological > understanding to fully use the imperious curse, I > bet an interprising > muggle could think of all sorts of benign uses for > it. I am probably exaggerating, but I find the idea of using Imperius-like control on mental patients particularly horrible. To take possession of a person's free will is utter de-humanization. In fact, I believe that this is what connects and sets apart the three unforgivables: they effectively annihilate a person, either by physically destroying her (AK) or by transforming her into a slave (Imperio) or into a beast, incapable of coherent thought because all resources are concentrated into taking the pain (Crucio). I cannot think of any other curse that might have a similar effect. Which is why I believe that any discussion of a 'positive' use for one of the unforgivables is misguided. Imperius turns its victim into a tool. I don't believe that it is possible to perform partial control under the Imperius curse, i.e. to tell your victim: 'be yourself, except for the bad habits', for the simple reason that the person who is possessed does not have a self anymore. The medical treatment which I see as closest to Imperius is hypnosis. Except the two are fundamentally different: the aim of hypnosis is a deeper exploration of the self than possible during conscious state, whereas Imperius completely cancels the idea of a self. So, no, I really do not think that taking over somebody's will is ever justified. Indeed, I would find the practice even more evil when used against vulnerable persons like children or unbalanced patients, because from the start those will have less chances of opposing it. JMO... Mira __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 20:02:52 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:02:52 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141233 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Let's see.... He [Snape] attempted to save > > the lives of the Potter family. > > > >>Eggplant: > After he had put the Potter family in danger in the first place. Betsy Hp: At this point in time, Harry doesn't know that. So his hatred is *not* at all connected to Snape's culpability with the events at GH. > >>Betsy Hp: > > He succeeded in saving Harry's life at least twice. > > > >>Eggplant: > And as I have pointed out before there are excellent reasons why > even a supremely evil Snape would save Harry's life on those > occasions, in fact if he had not done exactly that then my evil > Snape theory would be blown out of the water. Betsy Hp: But the fact remains, Snape *saved Harry's life*. Without Snape, Harry would be dead. I agree that Harry has no idea what Snape's motivations were. (Though I'm sure he'd *love* to believe it was for the most evil of reasons.) But the motivations don't count in this instance. You don't *reasonably* hate someone because they saved your life. > >>Eggplant: > I don't believe that is true, I believe Harry is convinced Snape > is at least partially responsible for Sirius's death, and if he > had seen chapter 2 as we readers had he would have even more > reason to think so. Betsy Hp: But Harry didn't read "Spinner's End". So, though he'd *love* to have a logical and clearcut reason to blame Snape for Sirius's death, he realizes that at this point, he really doesn't. What Harry is doing (and has been doing) is deciding Snape is guilty and then looking for evidence to prove it so. (Probably very much like young!Snape did with James.) That's a backwords way to arrive at a correct conclusion. In fact, it's a perfect way to miss things. > >>Eggplant: > I would not call Harry "unreasonable", I would call him a good > judge of character, a much better judge than Dumbledore. > Betsy Hp: Heh. Oh yeah, Harry's grand. That's why he chose to cheerlead Quirrell throughout PS/SS, pulled Lockhart down into the tunnels with him in CoS, and fanboy-ed Fake!Moody like a browncoat at a Joss Wheadon love-athon in GoF. Yup, it's hard to pull the wool over old Harry Potter's eyes! > >>Eggplant: > If Harry doesn't trust another person even though he has not seen > him do anything bad and later it turns out that the person is > indeed untruthful then I think Harry should be praised not > condemned; I would certainly pay very close attention the next > time he says he doesn't trust somebody. Betsy Hp: I'd feel the same way, *if* Harry was right about someone. But, while Harry gets close at times, he generally gets over emotional and blows it. Yes, Draco was up to something, but Harry missed the fact that Draco was being blackmailed into it. Yes, Snape was a Death Eater, but Harry completely reworks the facts when he boggles at Dumbledore's trust in Snape. I think the same emotional snap judgement was at work in GoF when Harry was so suspicious of Cedric. That suspicion caused Harry to put off following Cedric's advice with the egg, IIRC, and nearly cost Harry the tournament. I belive it's something Harry will need to overcome if he's to succeed in defeating Voldemort. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Wait, so Snape *didn't* save Dumbledore > > from the ring curse? > >>Eggplant: > I don't know for a fact that Snape didn't save Dumbledore, but I do > know enough to be very skeptical of such a claim, Harry did too. Betsy Hp: Why would Dumbledore lie? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Who did then? > >>Eggplant: > Neither I nor Harry have any idea, however there are about 6 > billion people on the planet and almost every one of them is a > more likely candidate than Snape. Betsy Hp: I wouldn't even buy this in a real life situation. (Could we at least count out everyone living in Japan at the time of the incident?) In a work of fiction it's completely nonsensical. I mean, sure, JKR could bring forth a completely new character at the eleventh hour. "Gee kids, it was Mrs. Hedgerow all along!" But I'm doubting she's gone through all this trouble just to cheat in the end. IMO, anyway. Betsy Hp From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Thu Oct 6 08:34:12 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:34:12 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141234 CH3ed: Percy. I dunno. Seems he should have been a Ravenclaw or a Slytherin rather than a Gryffindor, ay? But then he might have requested to be a Gryffindor like Harry and Hermione did. He is proud, but doesn't seem to have the courage to face the music when he is wrong. Even Seamus has shown a Gryffindor like courage in making up with Harry in OoP. I think he showed some concerns toward his siblings at times, tho. But he tends to be pompous when he does it. He tried to warn Ron against hanging with Harry in OoP because he thought with Harry's stinky reputation at that point Ron wouldn't look good hanging with him (tho we can extend it to- neither would Percy since his superiors knew Ron is his brother), he also looked very pale and fussed over Ron at the Lake after the 2nd task (GoF) because Harry and Ron were late coming out of the water. That might have been genuine care. From h.m.s at mweb.co.za Thu Oct 6 08:35:37 2005 From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (H.M.S) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:35:37 +0200 Subject: Memories in a Bottle References: <1128584310.1680.53990.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003601c5ca51$7d6fae40$0200a8c0@Sharon> No: HPFGUIDX 141235 Matt , in part: > But the memory where LV asks DD again to work at > Hogwarts, DD retrieves his own memory from a bottle and not from his > own head. Why? Sharon here: I always had the feeling that the memories were in bottles in order to be in storage over a long period. They are also easier to travel with in this way. The pensieve is merely the instrument used to watch them, like a DVD player is the instrument used to watch DVD's (memories) Sharon (Durban - South Africa) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 20:30:25 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:30:25 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic (was Motivations for Joining DEs ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141236 > Neri: > My theory is that what makes dark magic *Dark* is INTENTION. That is, > the very power of Dark Magic comes from intent of the wizard to harm > somebody else, and it won't work at all unless there is an evil > intention. zgirnius: This also makes sense to me. It is consistent with Bella's statements (as you note in portions I have snipped) and also with Crouch!Moody's confidence his whole class could try to AK him and would have no success. Neri: > This theory has a slight problem with Harry using Sectumsempra on > Draco without meaning it. We can solve this by assuming that > Sectumsempra is "dark" but not "Dark", but it might be something > else. I think Harry's Sectumsempra wouldn't have worked at all if he > didn't hate Draco so much. JKR builds Harry's hate for Draco during > all of HBP, and in fact during the whole series, and then uses the > bathroom incident as a warning: this is what happens to you if you > let your hate towards your enemy take hold of you. zgirnius: Snape's statement to Harry that Sectumsempra is Dark Magic is capitalized in the book. (How does that work? Is this Harry's interpretation? Is it how JKR would classify that spell?) Your explanation about Harry's quite successful use of Sectumsempra makes sense in terms of how he felt about Draco at that time. I guess this would indicate that it is lucky for Snape that he is so much faster/more experienced than Harry. I was assuming that even if one of those Crucios in "The Flight of the Prince" got through, they would not amount to much...but maybe Harry has "progressed" in the Dark Arts since the endof Book 5. From trekkie at stofanet.dk Thu Oct 6 20:43:45 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 22:43:45 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DIY Spell making References: Message-ID: <00b901c5cab6$a760e150$080aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 141237 > > bboyminn: > > Which brings us to another aspect, in many cases, the wand movement > seems to have precise requirements. A newly created or conceived spell > may not work until you have worked out the exact nature of the wand > movement necessary to invoke the magic. I suspect 'wand movement' is > both an art and a science in itself. > And that makes Snape's remark about "foolish wandwaving" so much more interesting. Obviously Snape, as the HBP, has been able to not just invent the "silly incantations" (yes I know that bit is only from The Media Which Must Not Be Named) but also the accompanying "foolish Wand-waving" that goes with the sectumsempra and the other spells he has alledgedly invented. There's something here that seems out of tune to me. ~Trekkie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 20:52:54 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:52:54 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic - Alternative Variations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > I would mostly agree with your list. By my point, my theory, is > > that it is the nature of the creation that makes Dark Magic 'dark' > > and not the nature of it's use. ... > > > Neri: > My theory is that what makes dark magic *Dark* is INTENTION. That > is, the very power of Dark Magic comes from intent of the wizard to > harm somebody else, and it won't work at all unless there is an evil > intention. > bboyminn: Well, my belief is really more of a hypothesis than a theory. I speculate that this is how it might work. I can just as easily speculate on your hypothesis, and in fact, I will. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about INTENTION, but there is something about that word that leaves me feeling uneasy. I would be more comfortable, but still slightly uneasy, if people said INTENT instead. The problem I have is that /intention/, to me, implies an outward projection of desire, and I really don't think that outward projection is enough to make a spell 'dark' and certainly not 'Dark'. By the way, I do realize that I am picking an extremely fine nit here. Let me reframe your hypothesis and see if we are still on the same page. Fake!Moody implies that casting the spell, the AK spell, would not be enough to kill him. The AK-Killing Curse needs a 'powerful bit of magic behind it'. So, I am now speculating that outward projection of desire, the desire to kill someone, would indeed NOT be enough to complete the Killing Curse, and this again brings me to, by my own interpretation, the uncomfortable use of the word /intention/. I don't think it is the outward projection of intented outcome that makes a spell Dark. Take the Partonus as an illustration, you can have all the outward intention you want, but if you aren't able to draw on that internal well of happy thoughts, the spell will fail. Extending this to your hypothesis, I don't think it is the intended outcome in the external world that makes a Dark spell Dark. I think it is the ability to draw on your own internal well of evil which then in turn 'fuels' the Killing Curse. The Darkness is in being able to draw that much evil intent/fuel from within yourself. It is this well of fuel that powers the spell and creates the /darkenss/, and not an outward intent to do harm. Do you see the difference? > Neri continues: > > In contrast, Bella tells us that Crucio won't work unless you want > to hurt someone, and even this won't be enough ? you need to > actually *enjoy* it. I think this is the principle behind all Dark > Magic. ... > bboyminn: I don't think this conflicts with my version of YOUR theory. But I don't completely agree with it the way it was implied in the books. I have always said, that Harry didn't fail in the Curcio Charm because he lack intention. I have always contended that Harry simply performed the Curse wrong. The Crucio Curse is a sustained curse, not a 'hit-and-run' curse. Harry cast the Crucio like he was casting a Stunning Curse. He cast it and immediately withdrew his wand and thereby his intent. However, I can still make this fit with my version of your hypothesis. In a moment of anger, Harry was able to reach into the well of viciousness to fuel the spell, but that well of viciousness is not a comfortable place for Harry. He let a taste of it slip out, but he simply could not sustain his own presence in that well of Darkness which would have in turn allowed him to fuel the external projection of is intent. He did intend to cause Bellatrix pain, but he simply didn't have the nature to allow him to sustain that kind of viciousness. Extrenally, he maintained the outward projection of intent to hurt Bella, but he could not sustain the internal draw on the source of 'fuel'. Again, I must ask, is any of this making sense, and does it remotely fit a version of your hypothesis? > Neri concludes: > > This theory has a slight problem with Harry using Sectumsempra on > Draco without meaning it. We can solve this by assuming that > Sectumsempra is "dark" but not "Dark", but it might be something > else. I think Harry's Sectumsempra wouldn't have worked at all if he > didn't hate Draco so much. ... > > Neri bboyminn: I think we can agree to agree that the Sectumsempra is probable 'dark' rather than 'Dark'. Harry was fuel by his outward projection of general hate for Draco, but I really don't see him in that moment drawing from a deep inner well of intent. I think what we have is a combination of fear and panic. Draco instantly move into the superior position; Harry was on the wet floor struggling, Draco was still standing and about to cast an Unforgivable. In that moment of panic, Harry cast the first spell that popped into his head. When you think about it, while Sectumsempra may have been effective, certainly 'Stupify' would have been more efficient. I have a bit of trouble though with your speculation that the spell wouldn't have work if Harry hadn't hated Draco. It seems in that brief moment when Harry sees Draco crying and vulnerable, he has some slight sympathy for him. Immediately Draco turns and attackes Harry, and from then on, I think there was very little time to draw on that internal well of fuel. So while I realize you were simply speculating on alternatives, I think I will stick to the idea that Sectumsempra is 'dark' but not 'Dark'. There is one small problem I have with this, Dark Magic seems to include, by implication, a range of magic. Not all Dark Magic is overtly harmful. Remember they teach Dark Magic as Drumstrang, that strongly implies that there must be /lesser/ magic that by some aspect of its core nature still falls into the catagory of 'Dark'. That's the one aspect I have trouble resolving in your, or my version of your, Hypothesis. However, if there is something 'destructive' in the creation of Dark Magic, whether destructive because it draws on an internal well of evil, or the life force of other living things, or uses ingredient to which a wizard has no right, it seems to include a full range of magic. So, in conclusion, I wonder if I have come up with a reasonable extension of your own hypothesis? Are we on the same page, or at least, figuratively, reading the same book, or have I completely misinterpreted things? Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 20:53:21 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:53:21 -0000 Subject: Harry and James - only skin deep (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141239 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Is Harry *really* so like his father? I don't think so. > > > >>Valky: > I don't agree with that at all. There has got to be at least a > dozen passages in which someone who knew James well says to Harry > he speaks like James or thinks like James or does something James > would do (other than flying). Betsy Hp: Sirius and Snape both say Harry is like James, but they're both very wrong, IMO. Because they base that likeness on Harry breaking a school rule or getting into trouble. But while James broke the rules for the fun of it, Harry only breaks them when he feels he has to. Actually, Harry is not a huge risk taker when he doesn't have to be, IMO. He's just willing to take a risk if he thinks the risk is necessary. James, on the other hand, would take the risk just because it's there. > >>Valky: > One example I can think of is in HBP when Dumbledore tells Harry he > has just 'Spoken like your mother and fathers son and Sirius true > godson.' > Betsy Hp: Well, yes, like James, Harry is choosing to risk himself to fight Voldemort. But since Lily and James and Sirius are not exactly alike, I took it to mean more that Harry is quite noble and brave, like his father is noble and brave, but not exactly like his father in personality. If that makes sense. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > James would annoy Harry by prattling on about how he was going > > to get his parents to buy him a broom and sneak it onto campus, > > school rules be damned. > Valky: > Well yeah it's not beyond reason that James would want to sneak a > broomstick into school, but there's no proof that James is spoiled > to the point where he'd be telling his parents what to do. > Betsy Hp: James had an invisibility cloak while still a schoolboy. That's pretty darn telling, IMO. It doesn't mean that the Potters were bad parents. I personally believe they were probably quite good. But they did make sure their boy had the best so I think it's quite possible that James would excitedly suggest that he'd be able to get his folks to buy him a broom. (And I'm sure that, like Draco, James would arrive for his first year sans broom.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > And perhaps he share a funny story he'd heard about Hagrid when > > Hagrid came to fetch Harry. > >>Valky: > Hmm that's all possible too, but what could James, who befriended > Peter Pettigrew, really say that was so offensive about Hagrid, who > also became one of his trusted friends. Betsy Hp: Maybe a funny little anecdote where Hagrid got drunk and nearly burned down his house trying to do magic? Of course, I think Draco probably heard the story because his father was on the board of goveners, so who knows if James would hear a similar tale. But if he did, I'd bet he'd eagerly share it. Oh, and when does Hagrid become a trusted friend of James? I was under the impression that they didn't interact much. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And then he'd cap it all off by asking Harry what sort of > > magic his parents liked to practice (not wanting to associate > > with dirty Dark Magic users). > >>Valky: > LOL, that is funny, but it's against canon, he can't very well have > had those kind of prejudices against people and befriend Sirius. > Betsy Hp: You're right, Valky, I was taking some poetic license there. Honestly, James would have probably expressed an eagerness to meet some Muggleborn students, "I hear they communicate by something called a Phelly-tone!" and ended up totally charming Harry. I do think the Malfoy politics "you are one of *us*, yes?" played a part in turning Harry off of Draco. So I think the more inclusive Potter politics would have attracted Harry. > >>Valky: > > I'll admit I can imagine James boasting a bit like Draco did in > Madam Malkins, but they most definitely would not have been the > same boy in different skin. Betsy Hp: Oh yes, I agree with that. While there are many parallels in the Potterverse there are no perfect mirrors, IMO. And while there are some similarities between Draco and James (both are outgoing performers, who love being the center of attention -- quite unlike Harry) there are some major differences, also. For one, they come from quite opposite ends of the WW political scale. For another, I think Draco is under more pressure to be something he is not. I doubt Mr. Potter had quite the same fixed idea of how James needed to be as I suspect Lucius had (has?) for Draco. > >>Betsy Hp, going for short > >>Valky: > Good idea Betsy. That was so much less tiring. Betsy Hp: Heh. Yeah, I kind of broke my brain on that Oklahoma sized post. But after writing the darn thing I wasn't going to *not* post it. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 21:21:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:21:44 -0000 Subject: DIY Spell making In-Reply-To: <00b901c5cab6$a760e150$080aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141240 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Which brings us to another aspect, in many cases, the wand > > movement seems to have precise requirements. ... I suspect 'wand > > movement' is both an art and a science in itself. > > > Trekkie: > And that makes Snape's remark about "foolish wandwaving" so much > more interesting. ... also the accompanying "foolish Wand-waving" > that goes with the sectumsempra and the other spells he has > alledgedly invented. > > There's something here that seems out of tune to me. > > ~Trekkie bboyminn: Thing to remember is that 'wand waving', while complex in its nature, is not necessarily complex in its execution. For example, in OotP when Tonks is helping Harry pack his trunk she makes the following comment - --- OotP; Am Ed, HB, Pg 53 --- "It's not very neat," said Tonks, walking over to the trunk and looking down at the jumble inside. "My mum's got this knack for getting stuff to fit itself in neatly -- she even gets the sock to fold themselves -- but I've never mastered how she does it -- it's a kind of flick --" She flicked her wand hopefully, one of Harry's socks gave a feeble sort of wiggle and flopped back on top of the mess within. - - - end quote - - - Here the wand movement is very simple but very precise; it's a 'flick' but apparently a very exact and precise 'flick'. I suspect the wand movement for Sectumsempra may be more general; more of a point-and-shoot movement. So, I guess my point here is that wand movement covers a full range from simple imprecise movement to simple precise movement to complex imprecise to complex precise movements; a full range of simplicity/complexity and precision. The central point to the discussion at hand is that you can't really know the nature of the wand movement for a new spell until you have experimented with it. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From maliksthong at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 21:33:30 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:33:30 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141241 > Brothergib: > The question is - did Snape know what would happen at GH? Since it > was Snape who actually told Voldemort of the prophecy in the first > place, it seems a fair assumption that Snape would be involved in > prophecy related matters after this. If you generate an idea at work, > you'd be pretty annoyed if you weren't involved in seeing it to > fruition!! > Chys: But WHY did Snape tell Voldemort in the first place? Am I to believe that he owed James a life-debt? Ok, then why did he give his information to Voldemort anyway- the prophecy, or was that because they didn't know it was his (James's) family specifically yet? If there was even a possibility that it could be his family, then Snape should have kept quiet due to the debt. I know it was Peter who gave them away, but it was Snape that got Voldemort on the hunt in the first place! Chys, still doesn't see what DD saw in him, but thinks Snape is more OFH. From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Thu Oct 6 08:52:07 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (ch3ed) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:52:07 -0000 Subject: How long was Snape a DE? was: Harry IS Snape! In-Reply-To: <4344A525.1090406@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141242 >KJ wrote: "So, since whatever friends he had, were or became DEs >one can reasonably assume that for whatever reason, he became one >as well, willingly. I think that is the period that Dumbledore >refers to as having been "good" and then becoming "bad", he >returned to the good." and > "I can't imagine him at the age of nineteen being a volunteer as >a spy to the point of becoming a fake DE. I can imagine him, like >Harry, being horrified at what he had become and asking Dumbledore >for help to save the Potters. He would not have gone to Dumbledore >otherwise. Dumbledore recruited him as a spy. Fortunately for him, >Voldemort vaporized himself after he had been serving as a spy for >about 15 months." CH3ed: Sirius said (paraphrasing) Snape came to Hogwarts knowing more curses than most upperclassmen, was always fascinated by the Dark Arts (which is why James didn't like him), and hung out with the Slytherin gang that nearly all became DE in PoA. I don't know if Sirius exaggerated, but I think Snape might have been one of the original DE (though not as popular as he is now since he isn't really pure-blooded) until he learned that LV's solution to the prophecy was to kill Harry (not the Potters per se, they were added benefits. Maybe that's why LV told Lily to stand aside though he didn't hesitate in killing James? He figured Snape's loyalty might slip?). My wild theory is that Snape loved Lily secretly and could guess what Lily would do to protect Harry, but if he had tried to stop LV himself he wouldn't still be alive today, so he went over to DD side. DD told Harry that telling LV of the prophecy leading to the Potters' murder was the greatest regret of Snape's life. Harry doesn't believe him, but he is fixated with the mutual hatred between Snape and James. I think it is Lily's death that Snape regrets... and another reason why he hates Harry. If there was no Harry to protect Lily wouldn't have had to die. And naturally DD wouldn't just tell Harry the person he hates almost as much as LV loved his mother.... just when they were about to go after LV's horcrux. I think Snape would turn out to have killed DD on DD's pre- arranged order. However, him being a Slytherin complicates things.... they aren't given to the heroics, are they? I suppose it would have to be a miracle of love indeed for it to turn out that way. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 22:05:16 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:05:16 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141243 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ch3ed" wrote: > CH3ed: Percy. I dunno. Seems he should have been a Ravenclaw or a > Slytherin rather than a Gryffindor, ay? ... He is > proud, but doesn't seem to have the courage to face the music when he > is wrong. ... > > I think he showed some concerns toward his siblings at times, tho. > But he tends to be pompous when he does it. He tried to warn Ron > against hanging with Harry in OoP because he thought with Harry's > stinky reputation at that point Ron wouldn't look good hanging with > him ... bboyminn: I have to confess that I have a great deal of sympathy for Percy, and I refuse to believe he is inherently bad until it is spelled out in the books in no uncertain terms. To some extent Percy was perfectly justified in his anger. He came home with the greatest news of his career. He was just made personal assistant to the Minister of Magic himself, and that implied that he was completely clear of any wrong-doing in the Crouch affair. That should have been cause for celebration and pride, but instead, his father undermines him. He implies that Percy isn't qualified or able to perform such a job and that he only got it so the Ministry could spy on the Order. That really had to hurt. Although the book had to go the way the book had to go, I think Arthur could have solved the whole problem by being more diplomatic about it. In fact, if he had played his card right, he could have used Percy to spy on the Ministry. All he has to do was congradulate Percy first, and propose a celebration in his honor, and then later subtly ponder the Minister's motives while re-enforcing Percy. I'm sure if the possibility had been presented in a more subtle way, Arthur could have gotten Percy around to his way of thinking, and even enlisted Percy's help. If that didn't work, Arthur could have suggested that Percy not have anything to do with the Order, just as a safety precaution, just to make sure something didn't accidently slip out. If dealt with properly the whole 'blow up' could have been avoided. Sadly, I think Arthur's negative reaction was the last straw for Percy. His existance in his own family had never been the best. He has been treated with simpering adoration by his mother, outright brutal hostility from the twins, and general indifference by his older brothers. That couldn't have been a very pleasant life for him; to never be included, to never be accepted, to always be met with negative responses. I'm surprised he's in as good a shape as he is. As far as his letter to Ron, in a sense, Percy is right. Percy is writing the letter with Ron's future in mind. Even now with a new Minister, Harry is not much in favor with the government. The Minister used his knowledge that Harry wanted to be an Auror, first as an enticement to be the Ministry posterboy, then as the threat. So, even now, Ron is likely to have trouble getting a job in the Ministry because of his continued association with Harry; that's a fact. So, Percy's concerns are justifiable. If he is concerned about Ron's future, then every thing he says it true and valid. What he underestimates is Ron's personal loyalty, but personal loyalty won't pay the rent. It's fine virtue, but not very practical. I absolutely refuse to accept any theories which present Percy in any form of 'evil'. Percy is a good guy, though occassionaly not nice, who stood up for himself. Sadly, he did make a great mistake in aligning himself with his government, but how many of us are guilty of that? When the Iraq war began, people here wouldn't here a word against it. Celebrities lost their careers for making negative comments. You could get yourself beaten up in a bar for speaking against it. Yet, now that the war is dragging on, years away from any resolution, people dying for nothing, how many people have had a change of heart? My point is that to some extent, standing with your duely elected government is something that many many people do, and in fact, is usually the right thing to do when the alternative is to stand with unfounded rumors. Yes... yes... Harry knows they are true, and Dumbledore believes him, but where is the proof, where is the evidence? Percy made a mistake, and he has even made a small, though somewhat political effort, to begin reconciliation, but he was met with the overt and agressive hostility of the twins. How can he ever reconcile himself against a hostile force like that? Nothing short of JKR saying it, will convince me that Percy is anything other than a good guy who is slightly misguided. Firmly entrenched. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 23:40:17 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:40:17 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141244 Alla wrote: > > Where else is is stated for a fact that Snape made an attempt to save Potters? Pretty please? > Saraquel responded: > Well there's an interesting quote from PoA (UK ed p265)where Snape enters the room in the shrieking shack - > 'Like father like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck, you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black -' > > The implication to me, is that Snape personally warned James that Sirius was a spy (that he was mistaken is not the point here)and in Snape's eyes James ignored the advice and ended up dead. I proposed that Snape sent a message, probably via his patronus, telling the Potter's that Voldemort knew where they were and was coming for them, and that their secret keeper had blabbed. Snape would have thought that Sirius was the secret keeper. Carol adds: I agree with you, Saraquel, and I was under the impression that I had cited the same quote in response to a similar query from Alla in another thread some time back, but maybe it was offlist, or I intended to do it and forgot. (Oh, well!) At any rate, I share your interpretation of the quoted passage, but I don't think Severus would have used his Patronus at that point because to my knowledge, he wasn't an Order member. (He isn't in the photo that Mad-eye Moody shows Harry in OoP.) I think he was spying for Dumbledore without anyone else's knowledge. I had the idea that he had confronted James in person before the Fidelius charm was placed (which would explain his violent reaction to James's "arrogant" refusal to believe him). There would be no point in talking to him if the Fidelius Charm had already been placed; the idea was to dissuade him from trusting Sirius (or any of his friends) because one of them was a spy for Voldemort. (Exactly how Severus could have done that without revealing that he was a DE I don't know, but that's beside the point.) Another possibility is that he used an owl. Even if Severus didn't know where James was, the owl would have been able to find him. In fact, I think it could have done so even after the Fidelius Charm was placed, since owls can deliver mail to 12 Grimauld Place. But by that time, as I said, it would have been too late. I'm almost certain that SS attempted to warn James while he was still a spy for Dumbledore. He would have had no opportunity to do so (except by owl) after September 1, when he began teaching at Hogwarts. DD would have known of his attempt, and his bitterness at its failure, and that would have been part of DD's reason for trusting him. I'm not a Snape/Lily shipper; I think the reason he wanted to save the Potters, aside from (IMO) not wanting to be party to murder, was his life debt to James. But in any case, the PoA quote that Saraquel cited does seem to support the view that SS tried to prevent the Potters' death. And it helps to explain the intensity of his hatred for Sirius, whom he believes throughout PoA and probably GoF as well to have betrayed the Potters and murdered twelve Muggles. (He overhears only a small part of the conversation in the Shrieking Shack and does not witness the transformation or escape of Scabbers/Pettigrew.) Carol, who refers to the young Snape as "Severus" and the young Lupin as "Remus" to match "Sirius" and "James"--they were all about 22 at this point P.S. This post was supposed to be a response to message 141222, but for some reason, it won't thread. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 7 00:05:49 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:05:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uses for imperius (was: Motivations for Joining DEs) References: <20051006050736.25622.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005601c5cad2$e08f7c90$0378400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141245 Mira: > I am probably exaggerating, but I find the idea of > using Imperius-like control on mental patients > particularly horrible. To take possession of a > person's free will is utter de-humanization. In fact, > I believe that this is what connects and sets apart > the three unforgivables: they effectively annihilate a > person, either by physically destroying her (AK) or by > transforming her into a slave (Imperio) or into a > beast, incapable of coherent thought because all > resources are concentrated into taking the pain > (Crucio). I cannot think of any other curse that might > have a similar effect. Which is why I believe that any > discussion of a 'positive' use for one of the > unforgivables is misguided. Magpie: I suspect the whole idea of imagining uses for these things in mental health is probably...well, not a waste of time, but not something that really tells us anything about canon. But in the case of Imperius, as with AK, it actually is possible to cast it without taking away their will: if they ask you to do it. If someone is harming themselves and asks you to Imperio them not to do that then it becomes an act of trust and perhaps very scary for the person doing the Imperio, but it's not really taking away the person's will. They already feel their will is being taken away from them by their compulsion and they are asking you to help them do what they really want to do. Mira: > Imperius turns its victim into a tool. I don't believe > that it is possible to perform partial control under > the Imperius curse, i.e. to tell your victim: 'be > yourself, except for the bad habits', for the simple > reason that the person who is possessed does not have > a self anymore. Magpie: I think, based on canon, that you actually can do this because it doesn't seem like people under the spell necessarily become zombies. It seems more like movie!hypnosis to me with post-hypnotic suggestions making the person ready to take new instructions, as opposed to real life hypnosis which has no such powers. If you couldn't just be yourself except for certain things I'd think they'd have been able to sniff out all the people under it in the first war. -m From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Oct 7 00:48:36 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:48:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Uses for imperius (was: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: <20051006050736.25622.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008b01c5cad8$daf71620$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141246 I am probably exaggerating, but I find the idea of using Imperius-like control on mental patients particularly horrible. To take possession of a person's free will is utter de-humanization. In fact, I believe that this is what connects and sets apart the three unforgivables: they effectively annihilate a person, either by physically destroying her (AK) or by transforming her into a slave (Imperio) or into a beast, incapable of coherent thought because all resources are concentrated into taking the pain (Crucio). I cannot think of any other curse that might have a similar effect. Which is why I believe that any discussion of a 'positive' use for one of the unforgivables is misguided. Imperius turns its victim into a tool. I don't believe that it is possible to perform partial control under the Imperius curse, i.e. to tell your victim: 'be yourself, except for the bad habits', for the simple reason that the person who is possessed does not have a self anymore. Mira Sherry now: i agree with you. I find the idea of the Imperius curse to be reprehensible under any circumstances. I am a person who has and has to fight repeatedly for control of my own life. The idea of anyone forcing their will upon me, able to make me do things that I would not do on my own is terrifying. There could not be any good reason for it, in my opinion. After all, the only way an addict truly stops doing whatever their addiction is, is when they make the choice to stop doing it. My cousin is a recovering addict, and I am very much aware of her struggles, but she has chosen the drugs, and now she has chosen to stop. Both times, the choice was hers, not forced on her by rehab of any kind. I wouldn't even equate Imperius with hypnosis, because, I believe hypnosis can't make you do things against your code of ethics or morality. It makes me think of a sort of lobotomy. maybe, people who had that done didn't get forced to do things against their will, but they ended up with no will, no personality. The Imperius is rightly considered an unforgivable curse, I think. Sherry From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 7 01:44:24 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:44:24 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141247 > Chys: > > But WHY did Snape tell Voldemort in the first place? Am I to believe > that he owed James a life-debt? Ok, then why did he give his > information to Voldemort anyway- the prophecy, or was that because > they didn't know it was his (James's) family specifically yet? If > there was even a possibility that it could be his family, then Snape > should have kept quiet due to the debt. Potioncat: Snape was a DE and he heard information that would help LV. I'm not sure if he was already applying for a job (at LV's orders), if he was already trying to return to DD (and was recruited) or if he was spying on DD and Trelawney for some other reason. But, he took information back to LV. If I'm correct, it would have been too early to know who the prophecy was about. (I think the pregnacies would not yet be public knowledge.) The fact that DD says the eavesdropper was in LV's employ, makes me wonder if DD and Snape weren't already planting information. However timelines aren't my strength, and I may be wrong about that one. How would anyone feel, if DD had planted that information via Snape? Would that make DD responsible for James's and Lily's deaths? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 01:44:30 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:44:30 -0000 Subject: Uses for imperius (was: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: <008b01c5cad8$daf71620$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141248 Sherry: > There could not be any good reason for it (Imperius), in my opinion. After all, the > only way an addict truly stops doing whatever their addiction is, is when > they make the choice to stop doing it. *(snip)* Ceridwen: And, I disagree. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I said Imperius could be used in mental health, I went on to mention violence. Both against oneself, and against others. An addict in recovery, or in need of recovery, would not fit that criteria. And someone who was, in the opinion of some, being 'obstinate' about 'what was good for them' (and I'll bet that quite a few of us have been described that way, with the describers then trying to run our lives, I know I have) would not fit that criteria, either. Use against people who are mentally able, even if in the opinion of some layperson whose advice was rejected are in a diminished state, is, would be, wrong. There are people who cannot control their actions. They cannot make decisions. They lash out, or turn on themselves, and do grave harm. I'm not talking about the 'cutting' that goes on in a lot of fanfics. I'm sorry, but that just reads like teenage hyperangst dreamed up by some grousey teen who wants to hurt people because they're aching over some hormonally induced fury. I'm talking about people who beat their caregivers and are incapable of stopping this sort of behavior, and people who harm themselves and cannot control their own actions in order to stop. Severely, and truly, mentally impared. We use, or have used, straight jackets and padded cells to control these people. For everybody's good, including their own. It can't be comfortable. Imperius, stopping them from harming themselves and the people trying to help them, would be kinder, IMO. It isn't removing the will, since the behaviors are not done by will but by compulsion. It wouldn't address the root causes of the behaviors, but it would make it safer for the people who can do this, to come in and help. And, since it did come up before, I do think the MoM would sanction using Imperius. It sanctioned Unforgivables before, under Crouch, sr. And the WW at large seems to be fairly apathetic toward what doesn't directly affect them. If the DMLE is using Unforgivables on DEs, so what? 'They deserve it'. And a fairly convincing politician can make it sound like they're staunchly doing their duty. Which doesn't mean that, in rare cases, Imperius to temporarily detain a violent criminal *when s/he's violent* and caught in the act of a crime, might be handy for the cop on the scene. Either to leave the criminal in order to pursue other criminals, or to keep himself or herself safe until back-up arrives. But again, I'm talking about an obviously violent individual here, not Standard Operating Procedure for law enforcement. Ceridwen. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 01:52:53 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 01:52:53 -0000 Subject: Harry and James - only skin deep (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141249 > > >>Valky: > > There has got to be at least a > > dozen passages in which someone who knew James well says to Harry > > he speaks like James or thinks like James or does something James > > would do (other than flying). > > Betsy Hp: > Sirius and Snape both say Harry is like James, but they're both very > wrong, IMO. Because they base that likeness on Harry breaking a > school rule or getting into trouble. Valky: In regard to Snape's opinion I agree on that without question, as it seems to me the basis for Snapes comparison was as equally based on what he didn't know about James as it is on what he doesn't/didn't know about Harry. He is close to neither of them really, so his observations would definitely be 'skin deep', so to speak. Sirius' otherwise, knew James really well. We have the one main difference that Sirius points out when Harry refuses to meet him in Hogsmeade because the trio have seen evidence that Lucius knows his animagus form. (Hey, aside: this could be the information Snape claims to have passed on to the DE's about Sirius) In this respect Harry is not like James because James would have relished the opportunity to dance with the danger of being caught in the company of someone who could get them all thrown in Azkaban. My interpretation of this is that James was too passionately sporting, relatively safe challenges being what they are, James would prefer greater stakes, possibly motivating him to play harder. Harry clearly is not like this, but he does have his fathers talent in respect of it, the greater and more deadly the challenge the better and more admirably he performs. harry is far from a show-off about it, though, while James absolutely was. And this is one reason why I find it almost impossible to think James would have 'fun' bullying Snape if there wasn't a very real degree of danger involved in doing so. And in this case both Sirius' claims that they got carried away with their own cleverness, and that James always hated the Dark Arts, are corrollaries, not contradictions as they are in other interpretations. But I digress, sorry. Sirius does know James well, and I do believe there are a couple of other quotes in POA and GOF which I don't have, that suggest a couple of James other traits which are like Harry's. The fact that he expected Harry to be 'all' like his father could actually be construed as quite telling too. Surely he saw enough of James in Harry to begin going with that expectation. IMO, we could probably meet in the middle on this one, I can agree with what you have said, just not to the same full extent as you have implied. BTW, I think the POA quote about sparing Pettigrew that I mentioned last post, was actually Dumbledore's words. > Betsy Hp: > James had an invisibility cloak while still a schoolboy. That's > pretty darn telling, IMO. It doesn't mean that the Potters were bad > parents. I personally believe they were probably quite good. But > they did make sure their boy had the best so I think it's quite > possible that James would excitedly suggest that he'd be able to get > his folks to buy him a broom. (And I'm sure that, like Draco, James > would arrive for his first year sans broom.) Valky: We definitely agree, then, on that, James used the school brooms in his first year. Or maybe the correct term is misused. ;D OTOH you have quite a good point about the Invisibility Cloak, James definitely had it good there, didn't he. You know, it makes you wonder if it wasn't a tradition for Potter men to have a lark at school as best they could. It seems to me a bit impertinent of Mr Potter sr to send his son to school with an Invisibility Cloak doesn't it I concede and agree about Harry's grandparents being a bit soft on James' little misdemeanours, they did give him advantages. I'm glad you agree that they weren't the same mould as the Malfoy's though :D > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > And perhaps he share a funny story he'd heard about Hagrid when > > > Hagrid came to fetch Harry. > Betsy Hp: > Maybe a funny little anecdote where Hagrid got drunk and nearly > burned down his house trying to do magic? Of course, I think Draco > probably heard the story because his father was on the board of > goveners, so who knows if James would hear a similar tale. But if > he did, I'd bet he'd eagerly share it. Valky: I have set myself up for a fll here, haven't I. Hagrid will be a hard example to debate, seeing that at the time he was still convicted of his supposed crime against Hogwarts. It's probably impossible to know what a young James will have thought of Hagrid. I think I might have to abort this mission > Betsy: > Oh, and when does Hagrid become a trusted friend of James? I was > under the impression that they didn't interact much. Valky: I thought that perhaps we were given this by the fact that Hagrid could enter GH while Harry was still there under the SK charm. I also think there were some comments by Hagrid in the beginning of PS/SS that suggest he and the Potters were on close terms. Thanking Betsy for an elucidating and lively debate. Valky Going shopping. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 02:21:31 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:21:31 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic - Alternative Variations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141250 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > I would mostly agree with your list. By my point, my theory, is > > > that it is the nature of the creation that makes Dark Magic 'dark' > > > and not the nature of it's use. ... > > > > > > Neri: > > My theory is that what makes dark magic *Dark* is INTENTION. That > > is, the very power of Dark Magic comes from intent of the wizard to > > harm somebody else, and it won't work at all unless there is an evil > > intention. > > > > bboyminn: >> > The problem I have is that /intention/, to me, implies an outward > projection of desire, and I really don't think that outward projection > is enough to make a spell 'dark' and certainly not 'Dark'. By the way, > I do realize that I am picking an extremely fine nit here. > > Let me reframe your hypothesis and see if we are still on the same > page. Fake!Moody implies that casting the spell, the AK spell, would > not be enough to kill him. The AK-Killing Curse needs a 'powerful bit > of magic behind it'. So, I am now speculating that outward projection > of desire, the desire to kill someone, would indeed NOT be enough to > complete the Killing Curse, and this again brings me to, by my own > interpretation, the uncomfortable use of the word /intention/. > > I don't think it is the outward projection of intented outcome that > makes a spell Dark. Take the Partonus as an illustration, you can have > all the outward intention you want, but if you aren't able to draw on > that internal well of happy thoughts, the spell will fail. > > Extending this to your hypothesis, I don't think it is the intended > outcome in the external world that makes a Dark spell Dark. I think it > is the ability to draw on your own internal well of evil which then in > turn 'fuels' the Killing Curse. The Darkness is in being able to draw > that much evil intent/fuel from within yourself. It is this well of > fuel that powers the spell and creates the /darkenss/, and not an > outward intent to do harm. > > Do you see the difference? Neri: I see a difference, but I still don't see your argument. The intention alone is surely not enough in *most* kinds of magic (or Hogwarts education would have been redundant) but this doesn't mean the intention can't be the defining property of a certain type of magic. It's as if I said "I have a theory: a car needs wheels to run" and you answered: "but Crouch!Moody said a car needs fuel to run, so I conclude the wheels without the fuel wouldn't work." It's true, but that doesn't mean the wheels can't be used to categorize the car as a Wheeled Vehicle. We have Bella's statement regarding the Unforgivables "you have to *mean* them" (emphasis in the original) and regarding Cruciatus (but I suspect this generalizes to the other Unforgivables as well) "you need to really want to cause pain ? to enjoy it ? righteous anger won't hurt me for long". We also have Crouch!Moody's statement regarding Avada Kedavra that "it needs a powerful bit of magic behind it ? you could all get your wands out and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'll get as much as a nosebleed". As I wrote above, these two statements don't contradict, but the question is: What is the unique property that defines Dark Magic? That it requires power and skill? This is true for most magic. Besides, I tend to believe Bella's statement more. *She* didn't have anything to hide - she was being evil and proud of it. Crouch!Moody, OTOH, couldn't very well say to his students "in order to produce a successful AK you need to really mean it ? to enjoy killing". First he wasn't there to teach them how to do it (as he said himself). Secondly, it would be tantamount to admitting that he really enjoyed killing that spider, which would be a slight giveaway considering he was trying to hide being a DE. So saying "it needs power" was the convenient excuse. Of course it needs power. Most advanced magic does. But is this the big secret? I agree it's a fine distinction, yet an important one. It's the distinction between abilities and choices all over again, and in the Potterverse it's the choices that matter most. Actually, the Potterverse is hardly original in this. Throughout most of western history and literature, Dark Magic was regarded as the result of making a conscious evil choice, usually symbolized by signing a written contract with the devil or one of his demons. We don't have devil and demons in the Potterverse, but I think the element of power that comes from making an evil choice is still there. > > bboyminn: > > I think we can agree to agree that the Sectumsempra is probable 'dark' > rather than 'Dark'. > > I have a bit of trouble though with your speculation that the spell > wouldn't have work if Harry hadn't hated Draco. It seems in that brief > moment when Harry sees Draco crying and vulnerable, he has some slight > sympathy for him. Neri: Zgirnius http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141236 convinced me that Sectusempra *is* capitalized Dark Magic, at least according to Snape. So I theorize that Harry's hate for Draco, building throughout six long years of animosity and humiliations, came through during that split second as a real intention to hurt him. But I agree that Harry also felt a slight sympathy towards Draco the moment before, and perhaps this was the small difference between dead Draco and Draco coming out of this experience without a scratch. This case, after all, wasn't the first time Harry tried to hurt Draco, only in previous cases he was using non-Dark curses. The situation here was like lashing at somebody with a rolled newspaper, trying to hurt him as hard as you possibly can, only to discover that what you thought was a rolled newspaper is actually a sharp knife. Only in this case I speculate that the stronger your intention to hurt would be, the sharper would be this knife. Neri From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 04:18:57 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:18:57 -0000 Subject: Uses for imperius (was: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: <20051006050736.25622.qmail@web32610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141251 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mira wrote: > I am probably exaggerating, but I find the idea of > using Imperius-like control on mental patients > particularly horrible. To take possession of a > person's free will is utter de-humanization. I'm talking about people who don't really have any real free will anyway. People who suffer from severe Schizophrenia or similar disorders, anorexics or cutters in severe danger of hurting themselves, and people like that. their complusions can be so bad they can't stop even when they want too. I'm not talking about people who suffer from S.A.D. The people I am thinking about would thank god if there was a way to control their impluses while a more permanent solution was being implemented. And in some cases, other than medication there isn't a way to work on deeper issues, its a matter of brain chemistry. something that could help them without relying on medication with side effects could be a godsend. It's even more valuable when you think about wild magic being something connected to emotions. Imagine what a magical schizoid would do even without a wand? In fact, > I believe that this is what connects and sets apart > the three unforgivables: they effectively annihilate a > person, either by physically destroying her (AK) or by > transforming her into a slave (Imperio) or into a > beast, incapable of coherent thought because all > resources are concentrated into taking the pain > (Crucio). I cannot think of any other curse that might > have a similar effect. Which is why I believe that any > discussion of a 'positive' use for one of the > unforgivables is misguided. Memory charms can be just is devastating. but they're used every day. thats much closer to a lobotomy than the imperious. Love potions are a much surer form of slavery and Molly giggles over them with the girls. At least the imperio can have practical applications. What real use is a love potion other than as a date rape drug? > Imperius turns its victim into a tool. I don't believe > that it is possible to perform partial control under > the Imperius curse, i.e. to tell your victim: 'be > yourself, except for the bad habits', for the simple > reason that the person who is possessed does not have > a self anymore. Canonically untrue. Did anyone notice Madame Rosmerta was under the curse for months at a time? Even Dumbledore didn't notice. There is probably even a way to work it out so the spell uses a lighter than normal touch. > So, no, I really do not think that taking over > somebody's will is ever justified. Indeed, I would > find the practice even more evil when used against > vulnerable persons like children or unbalanced > patients, because from the start those will have less > chances of opposing it. It's not like I want to use it for classroom management in Hogwarts or use it on people who are having bad dreams. In the most severe cases I think the people having it used on them would probably even ask for it. phoenixgod2000 From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 04:52:00 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 04:52:00 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141252 "horridporrid03" wrote: > But the fact remains, Snape *saved Harry's > life*. Without Snape, Harry would be dead. But the fact remains, Harry *saved Snape's life*. Without Harry, Snape and the entire wizard world would be dead. > though he'd *love* to have a logical and > clearcut reason to blame Snape for Sirius's > death, he realizes that at this point, > he really doesn't. Harry thought Snape's taunts to Sirius about his lack of courage encouraged him to take unnecessary risks, a theory that does not strike me as unreasonable; more generally Harry thought Snape was untrustworthy and a traitor, a suspicion that proved to be 100% correct, so I don't understand why you criticize Harry, I just wish Dumbledore was as perceptive. > What Harry is doing (and has been doing) > is deciding Snape is guilty and then > looking for evidence to prove it so. OK maybe I'm missing something but I just don't get it. Harry found Snape guilty, and Snape was guilty, so where's the problem? > Yes, Draco was up to something Harry not only told Dumbledore that Draco was up to something sinister and dangerous he also told him exactly where the trouble would come from (the Room Of Requirement) and exactly when it would happen (when the were out looking for the fake Horcrux), but unfortunately Dumbledore ignored him. > but Harry missed the fact that Draco > was being blackmailed into it. I'll just quote something you yourself said in the very same post: "the motivations don't count in this instance." Me:: >> I don't know for a fact that >> Snape didn't save Dumbledore, >> but I do know enough to be >> very skeptical of such a >> claim, Harry did too. Betsy: > Why would Dumbledore lie? I don't know that Dumbledore lied, but I do know that Dumbledore can be na?ve and is often very wrong about people. But as we have absolutely no details of the time Snape is alleged to have saved Dumbledore there is little more I can say on that subject. > sure, JKR could bring forth a completely > new character at the eleventh hour. > "Gee kids, it was Mrs. Hedgerow all along!" > But I'm doubting she's gone through all > this trouble just to cheat in the end. Better that than turn the murder of the greatest and kindest wizard in the series into a hero. Eggplant From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 6 15:19:02 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:19:02 -0000 Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > > Julie: > I agree. At first I was a bit bothered by the fact that Dumbledore > never chided Harry for his more recent misdeeds, both snooping > into Snape's memories in the Pensieve, and using Sectumsempra > curse on Draco. But this is standard Dumbledore. He doesn't > need to chide or punish Harry--that's why he has Snape! Snape-- > and to a lesser extent, McGonagall--acts as the disciplinarian, and > Dumbledore leaves Snape to play that role since he has his own > critical part to play as Harry's mentor. And he let's Snape play it > the way Snape wants, because Snape not only delivers the actual > punishments--detentions, etc--but provides a perfect example of > how Harry could end up if he doesn't eventually take those lessons > to heart. Sigh. And we're back to Machiavellian!Manipulative!Dumbledore again. That is one of the main things I dislike about much of the DDM!Snape speculation, is that it involves strained and contrived plots about Dumbledore's great, grand, secretive, master plan. I'm not sure that DDM!Snape necessarily requires such contrivances, but they do seem to figure prominently in the discussions. I certainly hope JKR doesn't go that way, as it would be unbelievable and ham- fisted. Isn't it much simpler, not to mention much more in keeping with the evidence we have, that Dumbledore doesn't confront Harry about various things because, well, he really isn't very worried about them? And that he lets Snape go his way because he needs the information Snape feeds him and, as JKR says, he's unfortunately become so detached that he doesn't fully appreciate the emotional havoc Snape causes? > > I'm not convinced Dumbledore is in the dark about much that goes > on with Harry though. He may know about the Crucio curse, in which > case he would also know Harry couldn't do it. He did know about the > Sectumsempra, but Snape is already punishing Harry for that, so > why does Dumbledore need to say anything? And given the eventual > result of Harry not learning Occlumency--Sirius's death--Dumbledore > must figure Harry learned his lesson there. (Even if Harry is blaming > Snape for that death, he knows he had a part in everything that led > up to that confrontation with Bella too. If he had taken Occlumency > seriously and not laid out the welcome mat for Voldemort, things > might have been different.) And yet DD himself seems to dismiss that line of thought, first by saying it is not Harry's ability to control himself that saved him, but his emotions themselves. Also he admits the whole Occlumency episode was a fiasco and takes the blame, quite rightly, on himself. I see no evidence that he intends Harry to learn any lesson at all other than the one he layed out in his office at the end of OOTP, that he, Dumbledore, can make mistakes. > > I'm pretty sure part of Dumbledore's "Severus, please.." included > not only getting the DEs away and keeping Hogwarts students safe, > along with Draco and Harry (physically), but perhaps also finishing > the final part in training Harry, which may have included stopping Harry > from doing any Unforgivables during those hyper-emotional moments > after Dumbledore's death. > Well, of course Snape was also saving his own hide from a great deal of pain by blocking said unforgiveables, now wasn't he? I see no evidence of Snape "training" Harry at all -- and I really never have seen any evidence that he takes his duty to teach Harry seriously. He ends as he began -- a bitter, self-centered, evil (in the sense of being an emotional child abuser, even if he turns out not to be a pawn of Voldemort) little man. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 6 15:23:15 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:23:15 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141254 Betsy Hp: > Let's see.... He attempted to save the lives of the Potter family. > He succeeded in saving Harry's life at least twice. He saved > Harry's friends' lives. Oh, he *did* force Harry to pay attention in > class and do his homework. And he *does* have a tendency to sneer. > The knave! Actually he has a tendency to act like a child abuser. For which there is, and can be, no mercy. eggplant: > > By my count Harry saved Snape's life and that of the entire > > wizard world at least 3 times, and Harry is the only one who has > > a chance of saving it once more, and Snape still treats Harry > > like dirt. Betsy Hp: > Yes, but living, breathing dirt. Without Snape, Harry > wouldn't even be that, and the two other times Harry saved the day > (I'm assuming Quirrell and the battle at the DoM?) would never > have occurred. Errr... and what's your point? What exactly about any of that gives Snape the moral right to act as he does? And I don't for one minute buy..."Because it's all right in the eyes of the wizarding world." Lupinlore From rh64643 at appstate.edu Thu Oct 6 16:06:39 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:06:39 -0000 Subject: Memories in a Bottle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141255 Matt wrote: > > Is it possible that DD might have stored up some of his memories > > at Hogwarts so that Harry could return and check them out for > > himself? Finwitch wrote: > Where would he leave them with? My guess is *Aberforth* - who > would ask questions about bottles in a *bar*? Any other place and > it would be more curious. (Although Trelawney's hidden bottle > raises a question - was she REALLY just drinking? What if, in that > bottle, was the memory about Snape and Aberforth?) > Anyway, I want Aberforth in a decent role in the 7th book. Why > tell us Albus Dumbledore has this brother, mention him twice, then > have Harry sense 'some familiarity' with the bartender of Hog's > Head... > Besides, we just got to have a Dumbledore in the story still - but > I suppose his first name will be Aberforth from now on. truthbeauty1: I love this idea. There is a lot of imagery inserted in O.O.T.P when the DA meet for the first time in the Hogshead of dirty bottles. The bottles and there appearance seem to be the only description of the state of the Hogshead besides the stange patrons and its bartender. Rowling has a good as told us flat out that the bartender is Aberforth. I believe besides the mention of Harry sensing something familiar about him, that the place smelled faintly of goats, which is a clue that I just love. I may be grabbing at straws here, but the name of the bar itself has a connotaion to Dumbledore. The Hogshead, head of Hogwarts? I would love to see Aberforth as a fairly importnat character. Harry has learned a lot about his enemy, now isnt it time to learn about his role model? From papa at marvels.org Thu Oct 6 17:13:38 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:13:38 -0400 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42FD968400014CDC@mta9.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141256 >Eggplant said >Despite his flaws in the end James turned out to be a good person, but >Snape turned out to be a monster just like Harry thought; so Snape's >judgment was poor and Harry's judgment was excellent. > RM - I do think this assumes facts not yet in evidence, (or canon). We don't know for sure yet how Snape "turned out" and won't until the whole picture is revealed. While it's true that the argument could be made that Snape is evil, that has not been proven, as evidenced by a couple of thousand posts on either side of the question. RM, flipping coin to see whether Severus is good or bad and trying to keep an open mind :-) From lebeto033 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 6 17:53:03 2005 From: lebeto033 at yahoo.com (lebeto033) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:53:03 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141257 Saraquel: > Well there's an interesting quote from PoA (UK ed p265)where Snape > enters the room in the shrieking shack - > 'Like father like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck, you > should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well > served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too > arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black -' > > Up thread I wrote something on this. I quoted the whole speech > because it needs to be seen in context. The implication to me, is > that Snape personally warned James that Sirius was a spy (that he > was mistaken is not the point here)and in Snape's eyes James ignored > the advice and ended up dead. I proposed that Snape sent a message, > probably via his patronus, telling the Potter's that Voldemort knew > where they were and was coming for them, and that their secret > keeper had blabbed. Snape would have thought that Sirius was the > secret keeper. Another interpretation could be that Snape suspected Sirius of being a deatheater and then told James of his theory before they went under the Fidelius. This might have prompted the Potters to switch to Peter because he would be unexpected like said in canon and also was the only friend not a suspected DE (due to Remus being a werewolf). Thus Snape would factor even more into the death of the Potters. lebeto From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 6 19:59:34 2005 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:59:34 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141258 I've always wondered why Percy had turned against his family so completely. True, he's a prissy by the book kind of Wizard, very ambitious and always trying to be the center of attention. But what if it's more than that? Is it feasable that he could be under an Imperius Curse? Or could he have been somehow subjugated by LV and be a spy or pawn? It's hard for me to imagine that he could have turned against his family as much as he has unless there was some kind of outward intervention or control involved. Steve From rh64643 at appstate.edu Thu Oct 6 20:48:51 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:48:51 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141259 ch3ed wrote: (snip) > He tried to warn Ron > against hanging with Harry in OoP because he thought with Harry's > stinky reputation at that point Ron wouldn't look good hanging > with him (tho we can extend it to- neither would Percy since his > superiors knew Ron is his brother), he also looked very pale and > fussed over Ron at the Lake after the 2nd task (GoF) because Harry > and Ron were late coming out of the water. That might have been > genuine care. truthbeauty1 I agree that there are times where he shows actual concern. I am not trying to say he is inhuman, just a human with very flawed charater. In the 5th book, he does very cruel things to his mother. (refusing to see her, returning her christmas gift) She has always supported him, maybe even favored him in ways. And he goes about trashing his fathers name. I truly believe that the only reason he writes to Ron is because he has become prefect and to brag a little about how high he is in the ministry.I am afraid I have a bit of a personal vendetta against Percy. His ambition has very few equals in these books, and those are not good characters. And the potential peacemaking in HBP is IMO just a way to get Scrimgeour near Harry. I just see Percy as such a potential for LV to use to hurt somone that Harry cares about. I think I dislike him soo much because I love the Weasleys soo much. Harry would give anything to be in Percy's place and Percy squanders it all on a chance for a little power. From rh64643 at appstate.edu Thu Oct 6 21:23:59 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:23:59 -0000 Subject: Lucius Junius Brutus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141260 Ok sorry but this has been on my mind for a long time and I just have to let it out. I am in a class right now that deals with the elements of Classical mythology and literautre the Rowling has brilliantly used in her books. On like the first day of class we were talking about namesakes and we had to read about where Lucius Malfoy's name came from. There is a figure in Roman history named Lucius Junius Brutus. This character pretended in essence to be and idiot so that he could escape the fate of his brothers. He was therefore not suspected. Now this to me sounds exactly like when Lucius claimed to be under the Imperious curse so that he could get off on all charges. (his money didnt hurt) Well this Lucius guy goes on to become the first Consulate of Rome and he is known for his very strict rule. Now heres the clincher. He murdered his own sons because they were fighting agaisnt him with the OTHER SIDE. So I firmly believe that Rowling got the name from here and I fimly believe that Dumbleodre got to Draco and he is going to be killed by his father for trying to help Harry in some way.If anyone has any thoughts for or agaisnt this I would love to hear them. truthbeauty1 From dossett at lds.net Fri Oct 7 03:26:23 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:26:23 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141261 >zgirnius: >OK, the list so far, see above for justifications: > >1)The magic which restored Voldemort's body. >2)The unforgivables >3)Sectumsempra > >More Dark magic: >4)Horcruxes. DD and Slughorn agree on this one. >5)Possession. ... >6)The magic which creates Infiri. ... >7)Powerful curses such as that on the ring horcrux and the necklace that nearly kills Katie Bell ... > >That's all I can come up with... >bboyminn: > >I would mostly agree with your list. By my point, my theory, is > that it is the nature of the creation that makes Dark Magic 'dark' > and not the nature of it's use. Also, we need to make a > distinction between 'Dark' with a capital 'D' and 'dark' with a > small 'd'. Pat: What can studying GP and all that was found belonging to the Blacks contribute here? We have wartcap powder, which F/G are going to put to 'good' ;-) use, but they are using it for items for their joke shop, not to do anything that has been defined as 'Dark.' And all the other items that Kreacher hid in his room: no real use was found for most of them, and yet Sirius wants to know how Harry can have missed that his family were 'dark' (I'm putting that with a small 'd' because we don't know of any real 'Dark' things they were involved in, with the exception of Regulus, and even he turned his back on Voldemort, possibly destroying a horcrux in the process.) The music box that made everyone feel sleepy and weepy until Ginny slammed it shut: I suppose that could have a 'dark' or 'Dark' use. There were snakes on nearly everything in the house, but even Parcelmouth has been spoken by good wizards as well as bad. . .is there more that I'm missing here? I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on the subject of everything found at Grimmauld Place. Thanks - Pat From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 7 06:12:15 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:12:15 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lebeto033" wrote: > > Saraquel: > > > Well there's an interesting quote from PoA (UK ed p265)where Snape > > enters the room in the shrieking shack - > > 'Like father like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck, you > > should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well > > served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too > > arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black -' > > > > Up thread I wrote something on this. I quoted the whole speech > > because it needs to be seen in context. The implication to me, is > > that Snape personally warned James that Sirius was a spy (that he > > was mistaken is not the point here)and in Snape's eyes James ignored > > the advice and ended up dead. I proposed that Snape sent a message, > > probably via his patronus, telling the Potter's that Voldemort knew > > where they were and was coming for them, and that their secret > > keeper had blabbed. Snape would have thought that Sirius was the > > secret keeper. > > > Another interpretation could be that Snape suspected Sirius of being a > deatheater and then told James of his theory before they went under > the Fidelius. This might have prompted the Potters to switch to Peter > because he would be unexpected like said in canon and also was the > only friend not a suspected DE (due to Remus being a werewolf). Thus > Snape would factor even more into the death of the Potters. > > lebeto > PoA: "harry...I as good as killed them," he[Sirius] croaked. "I persuaded Lily & Ja,mes to change to Peter at the last moment, persuaded them to use him as Secret-Keeper instead of me...I'm to blame, I know it" p 365 Am Ed Hardcover Canon disagrees with that theory. For whatever reason, Sirius was the one who requested that Peter replace him as Secret Keeper - James did not do it on his own. What is it with everyone trying to blame Snape for EVERY ill in potterverse? Could it be that several people made mistakes on their own, including DD for not revealing to the Potters why DD should be the secret keeper instead of either Peter or Sirius, and those actions, along with Snape's, caused the Potter's downfall? It doesn't rest on Snape's shoulder's alone. Sure, he heard the 1st part of the prophecy, and told Voldemort. But he did turn prior to the Potter's death and therefore was working for the Order and not for LV and certainly not for helping the Potter's die. Snape is partially responsible, but so is Peter, Dumbledore, James, Sirius and most of the blame(over 80%, in my eyes), is the person who actually killed the Potters, Voldemort. colebiancardi (I know some of you really dislike Snape, but he is not the *big bad* in PotterWorld - Voldemort is) From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Fri Oct 7 06:30:01 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:30:01 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141263 Deborah, now: Like Hermione, Percy is an academic top achiever - perhaps an overachiever. The argument most used about Hermione is that Ravenclaw membership wouldn't have taught her anything new, whereas being in Gryffindor certainly did. Looking at Percy, I think a point worth making is that he's not the only bright child in his large family, but he is the only one who doesn't care about sport, another way of saying he's no good at it. And kids who are perceived as bad at sport often run into unpopularity or are just discounted for that reason alone. At home and at school ... If they're megabright, so much the worse. So, then, what did Our Perce learn from his Gryffindor years? The reassuring message that the opinions of one's family don't necessarily count for anything! There he is, ignored or unpopular among his siblings, a poor sportsman, but he still gets to be Head Boy, just like his big brother. (I'm assuming that he would realise, like any child, that deep in the job description of every mother is unconditional love for her children; nothing personal, therefore, and something he can overlook.) This reinforces his natural urge to believe that he's right all the time. Not necessarily a bad person. Just a pain in the neck. However, what I'd really value is some sign, however small, that there's more to our sentimental little airhead, Lav-Lav, than meets the eye. (Parvati at least went to the Yule Ball with her sister and two guys who were then deeply uncool and clueless, took the initiative, and dumped them. Not kind, but bloody bold and resolute!) Especially if there really are two missing Gryffindor girls who are just too naff to mention ? think what she's being compared with! Come to think of it, what House could have suited the future Professor Trelawney? We assume that Hufflepuff is the catch-all House for the kids who don't fit in anywhere else ... perhaps Gryffindor also has that function? Deborah, who doesn't begrudge Sybill the cooking sherry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 06:36:28 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:36:28 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <42FD968400014CDC@mta9.wss.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141264 "Ralph Miller" wrote: > this assumes facts not yet in > evidence, (or canon). We don't > know for sure yet how Snape > "turned out" It is canon that Snape pushed a very nice defenseless old man out of a tower to his death; I realizes that is not enough to convince some that the man is not a hero but it is sufficient for me because at this point I cannot conceive of any way to produce a good book 7 and also a good Snape. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 06:57:03 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:57:03 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141265 "mesmer44" wrote: > Is it feasable that he [Percy] could > be under an Imperius Curse? I seem to remember JKR specifically ruling that out in an interview, but I could have guessed that anyway because Percy being under the Imperious Curse for 6 books just wouldn't be very interesting. Better to have genuine emotion and genuine mendacity. > It's hard for me to imagine that he > could have turned against his family > as much as he has I don't see why that's hard to believe, Percy has been a SOB from book 1 and has steadily gone downhill from there. Eggplant From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 7 10:30:11 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:30:11 -0000 Subject: Lavender and Parvati (was: Re: Percy the Prefect) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" wrote: > However, what I'd really value is some sign, however small, that > there's more to our sentimental little airhead, Lav-Lav, than meets > the eye. (Parvati at least went to the Yule Ball with her sister and > two guys who were then deeply uncool and clueless, took the > initiative, and dumped them. Not kind, but bloody bold and resolute!) Hickengruendler: IMO, there are other some other scenes that indicate the Gryffindor- ness of both characters. During the first flying lesson Parvati defends Neville from Malfoy and later Harry from Professor McGonagall, when she thought Minerva wantd to give him detention from flying. She was wrong, but I do think it takes a lot for an eleven year old girl to do something like this, especially because she is not that close a friend to Harry. Lavender helped catching the Blast Ended Skrewts after they escaped, while most of the class fled. This again might not be much, but I do think it shows a certain braveness, especially because it was her, who described the with "Eeeeeewwwww" when she first saw them. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 12:39:20 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:39:20 -0000 Subject: Lucius Junius Brutus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > > Ok sorry but this has been on my mind for a long time and I just have > to let it out. I am in a class right now that deals with the elements > of Classical mythology and literautre the Rowling has brilliantly used > in her books. On like the first day of class we were talking about > namesakes and we had to read about where Lucius Malfoy's name came > from. There is a figure in Roman history named Lucius Junius Brutus. > This character pretended in essence to be and idiot so that he could > escape the fate of his brothers. He was therefore not suspected. Now > this to me sounds exactly like when Lucius claimed to be under the > Imperious curse so that he could get off on all charges. (his money > didnt hurt) Well this Lucius guy goes on to become the first Consulate > of Rome and he is known for his very strict rule. Now heres the > clincher. He murdered his own sons because they were fighting agaisnt > him with the OTHER SIDE. So I firmly believe that Rowling got the name > from here and I fimly believe that Dumbleodre got to Draco and he is > going to be killed by his father for trying to help Harry in some > way.If anyone has any thoughts for or agaisnt this I would love to > hear them. > > > truthbeauty1 > The Roman Empire was populated with Luciuses and quite a few of them attained a real notoriety. Lucius Septimus Severus ? Machiavelli's most favourite statesman, Lucius Tarqunius Superbus ? the Roman's most hated tyrant and a father of the most famous rapist. By contrast Lucius Junius Brutus together with Lucius Tarqunius Collatinus were actually what one would call "good guys" ? they punished the rapist, banished the tyrant and founded the Roman republic. So you see you can find a suitable Lucius just for about any scenario you'd like to champion. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 7 13:25:50 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:25:50 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141268 > > Deborah, now: > > So, then, what did Our Perce learn from his Gryffindor years? The > reassuring message that the opinions of one's family don't necessarily > count for anything! There he is, ignored or unpopular among his > siblings, a poor sportsman, but he still gets to be Head Boy, just > like his big brother. Potioncat: Has it ever been determined which classmate of Harry's will be a teacher? I predict Percy and I see two possible settings: Once again the MoM puts someone at Hogwarts whose first loyalty is to the Minister. Or, McGonagall is the headmistress and as she apparantly thought highly of Percy before, hires him as Head of Gryffindor. I'm sure he could teach Transfiguration. Or both of the above. Think about it; someone has to fill Snape's role as Unreasonable Teacher. Can't you see it, "I am Professor Weasley, Master of Transfiguration." Deborah: > Come to think of it, what House could have suited the future Professor > Trelawney? We assume that Hufflepuff is the catch-all House for the > kids who don't fit in anywhere else ... perhaps Gryffindor also has > that function? Potioncat: If courage is the overall determining factor, you can have highly intelligent or incredibly dull students who just happen to be brave. But I would hope that all the students in all the the Houses have degrees of loyalty, courage ambition, and intelligence. Although have we ever discussed whether being clever means being intelligent? From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 7 14:46:11 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:46:11 -0000 Subject: Good writer (was: Harry IS Snape!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141269 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > I think it's several things. In the case of HBP, I think the romance > hurt a lot. It just wasn't well done or particularly believable, > even taking into account that these are teenagers. Pippin: I agree with this in a way. The romance does sound a bit forced, though the way the characters themselves act and speak is very believable -- they sound _just_ like the kids in my carpool. Maybe that's part of the problem -- we oldsters would like to remember the magic of young love and forget all the parts that were mundane, not to say miserable. But I think JKR, as she says, really wanted to convince us that Ginny was Miss Right and Hermione was not, and I think she tried a little too hard, perhaps not realizing that her conviction was going to come through anyway. Lupinlore: > However, I think more to the point JKR is hurt by the way the > different books come together, or rather fail to come together. The > radical changes in tone from one book to another are jarring and work > hard against suspension of disbelief. Pippin: It's true that the fairytale atmosphere of the earlier books has well-nigh evaporated. It's like the difference between The Hobbit and LOTR. In both cases, there was something darker and dystopian swimming below the surface in the earlier works that was easy to ignore -- casual contempt for Muggles emerges even in the first book along with Dumbledore's triage-like approach to saving Harry. What we have yet to learn is whether Rowling has anything to say that's worth the loss of the whimsy and sheer escapism. That has nothing to do with the quality of the writing per se--rather poorly written books have changed the world: Uncle Tom's Cabin, and four little religious tracts composed in (I am told) indifferent Greek come to mind. Lupinlore: > Also, be honest, who that has ever played D&D could read about > the "quest for the seven horcruxes" and not at least titter, if not > outright guffaw? It was like she walked into a comic-book shop and > decided to use the plot of the first old D&D module she found lying > in the Clearance Sale box. Pippin: Yup. They're pure McGuffin and proud of it. What's important is not the horcruxes but what Harry is willing to sacrifice to get rid of them, and what Voldemort and his allies are willing to do to defend them. What kind of solution to the problem of evil is destroying seven soul fragments? What kind of solution was throwing a magic ring into a volcano? As Ursula LeGuin remarked, the only people who are troubled by this are those who think there really *is* a solution to the problem of evil. Lupinlore: > Worst of all, JKR has a bad habit, as I've said before, of writing > herself into corners and then getting out by, well, cheating. It's > like the old Saturday matinees where you see a car go over a cliff > with the hero inside and spend all week wondering how he's going to > survive, only to return the next week and be treated to a scene where > the hero jumped out of the car BEFORE it went over the cliff. Pippin: If the filmmakers establish that Our Hero is an escape artist, show him struggling to escape, and allow you to see the door crack open just before the camera cuts back to show the dreadful plunge, then the viewer has got no cause to complain -- though there will always be those who hate the hero and want to see him crash and burn. Harry spent all of OOP learning to accept the reality of death. That's what that whole thing with the thestrals was about , IMO, -- finding that he's not the only person who can see them, that they were there all along, and that he can harness and control them. He also had to accept the reality that wise, kindly, loving adults can still fail him (something, in my experience, that can be horribly difficult for someone from an abusive background to understand.) Though he thought for most of Phoenix that Dumbledore abandoned him because he didn't like him any more, he also found that Sirius and Molly, not to mention Ron and Hermione, were good people who still cared about him, yet were unable to help him very much and sometimes made things worse. So he was prepared, in a way, both to lose Sirius, and to find that Dumbledore could fail, both as Sirius did by having concerns that were more urgent to him than Harry's welfare, and as Molly did by having the wrong idea about what's good for Harry. IMO for Harry to begin HBP as shattered and rebellious as he was at the beginning of OOP would negate a very long book. I am reminded of the story that a woman came to the Buddha and asked him to restore her dead child to life. The Buddha agreed, provided she would bring him something from a household that had never known loss. Of course she failed, and had to bury her child and accept her grief. What Harry went through in Phoenix was something like that. He saw that Hagrid, Luna and Neville had been living with the loss of a parent for most of their lives, and though Harry's never thought they were fully functional, in OOP they were all managing better than he was. That was a powerful incentive for Harry to draw on his immense resources of resilience and recovery, which Rowling has certainly established that he had. I don't think anything got swept under the rug, though obviously a lot of situations are hanging fire until the conclusion. Pippin From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Oct 7 10:23:44 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:23:44 -0000 Subject: Lucius Junius Brutus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > > Ok sorry but this has been on my mind for a long time and I just have > to let it out. I am in a class right now that deals with the elements > of Classical mythology and literautre the Rowling has brilliantly used > in her books. On like the first day of class we were talking about > namesakes and we had to read about where Lucius Malfoy's name came > from. There is a figure in Roman history named Lucius Junius Brutus. > This character pretended in essence to be and idiot so that he could > escape the fate of his brothers. He was therefore not suspected. Now > this to me sounds exactly like when Lucius claimed to be under the > Imperious curse so that he could get off on all charges. (his money > didnt hurt) Well this Lucius guy goes on to become the first Consulate > of Rome and he is known for his very strict rule. Now heres the > clincher. He murdered his own sons because they were fighting agaisnt > him with the OTHER SIDE. So I firmly believe that Rowling got the name > from here and I fimly believe that Dumbleodre got to Draco and he is > going to be killed by his father for trying to help Harry in some > way.If anyone has any thoughts for or agaisnt this I would love to > hear them. > > > truthbeauty1 > Interesting theory, but I doubt it. It seems dangerous to link specific figures in HP with specific counterparts in history or in other literature. For instance, Remus in Roman legend was killed by his brother after apparently violating one of Rome's sacred codes (leaping over the wall, actually). Are we to assume there is a Romulus out there (JKR has already said Remus does not have a brother with that name) lying in wait to wreak revenge on Lupin? There was an Emperor Severus who, during a time of confusion and civil war in the Empire, apparently betrayed his benefactor and was forced to commit suicide by said benefactor's heir. Are we to assume Harry is going to hand Snape a dagger and say "Do the honorable thing, open a vein and save us the trouble?" Lucius, first of all, has the same root as Lucifer (i.e. Lux or Light) and that may well be all that JKR is getting at. Secondly, Lucius was a very common Praenomen (first name) among upper-class Romans, and there are numerous men with that name in history other than Lucius Junius Brutus. For instance, there was Lucius Antonius, brother of Mark Antony who was eventually forced to make his peace with the regime of Octavian. There was Lucius Apuleius, author of The Golden Ass, a novel about magic and mischief and corruption in the later empire. There was Lucius, hero of the aforementioned novel. And there Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, who became emperor and, after a very promising start, descended into corruption and madness -- he comes down through history to us under his more popular name, Nero. Nice idea, though. Lupinlore From sweety12783 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 13:37:52 2005 From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (Nina Baker) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 06:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius Junius Brutus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051007133752.38678.qmail@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141271 Truthbeauty1 wrote: Ok sorry but this has been on my mind for a long time and I just have to let it out. I am in a class right now that deals with the elements of Classical mythology and literautre the Rowling has brilliantly used in her books. On like the first day of class we were talking about namesakes and we had to read about where Lucius Malfoy's name came from. There is a figure in Roman history named Lucius Junius Brutus. This character pretended in essence to be and idiot so that he could escape the fate of his brothers. He was therefore not suspected. Now this to me sounds exactly like when Lucius claimed to be under the Imperious curse so that he could get off on all charges. (his money didnt hurt) Well this Lucius guy goes on to become the first Consulate of Rome and he is known for his very strict rule. Now heres the clincher. He murdered his own sons because they were fighting agaisnt him with the OTHER SIDE. So I firmly believe that Rowling got the name from here and I fimly believe that Dumbleodre got to Draco and he is going to be killed by his father for trying to help Harry in some way.If anyone has any thoughts for or agaisnt this I would love to hear them. sweety12783: It's very interesting that you mention this because I remember JKR telling us to look for patterns in the names. There is also another story that involves Lucius but this time is in the King Arthur Legends. King Arthur defeated an Emperor of Rome by the name of Lucius. So I think that JKR might have had multiply sources of inspiration for her characters. So maybe Arthur Weasley will defeat Lucius. Its very interesting that the rivalry between Mr. Weasley and Lucius Malfoy has been touched on a few times in the books. It would be a good (maybe justice) if Lucius was defeated by someone he considered a "blood traitor." Just another outlook. From papa at marvels.org Fri Oct 7 14:08:57 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:08:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42FD968C00013E5A@mta10.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141272 RM - this assumes facts not yet in evidence, (or canon). We don't know for sure yet how Snape "turned out" Eggplant - It is canon that Snape pushed a very nice defenseless old man out of a tower to his death; I realizes that is not enough to convince some that the man is not a hero but it is sufficient for me because at this point I cannot conceive of any way to produce a good book 7 and also a good Snape. RM - Until we have canon explaining exactly what the "please" on the tower meant, and a definitive explanation for what Harry saw rising from the burial, among other things, we are like the blind man who touchs an elephant's trunk and assumes that the elephant is a snake-like animal. We need to see the whole picture to know the truth. I'm not saying that your viewpoint is not a valid one, I am saying that it hasn't been proven to be the only true and correct one. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" Hamlet, Act 1 Scene V From littlehorn489 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 09:04:01 2005 From: littlehorn489 at hotmail.com (bigestbarda) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:04:01 -0000 Subject: R.A.B.'s identity confirmed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141273 > Antosha wrote: > > > > > "Regulus," IIRC, means 'little king' or prince--there was a lot of > speculation just a few > > months ago that HE might have been the HBP. And "Arcturus" > means 'guardian of the > > bear'--do we know any bears in canon? > > Carodave replies: > There is one animagus frequently described as a bear-like dog - maybe > in the end Regulus did something to save / help Sirius as part of his > redemption? Maybe Sirius had something to do with his brother's > decision to leave the DEs? > "bigestbarda" writes: I've been wondering for a while now if the reason Regulus left the DE was that he was asked to harm, or kill, Sirius. We know Sirius, James, Lily and Lupin were all members of the original OOP and among a very small group of people who weren't afraid to call Voldemort by name (AFAIK, the only other one is DD); we know he's powerfully magical; a decent dueller and that the Order were being 'picked off one by one'. I would be surprised if Voldemort hadn't delegated someone to knock old Padfoot off- and what better a test of loyalty to him, and the DE 'family', than asking the new recruit to murder his blood-traitor brother? Doesn't that seem like a very Voldemorty thing to do? So, Regulus' actions in leaving the DE and stealing the locket were born out of love for his brother. I know others have suggested that Regulus may have left when he found out Voldemort was a half-blood or that he was going to kill a small child, but none of these is really sufficient enough to explain how a young man goes from joining to please his mum to performing the absurd act of bravery that was getting to the cave and stealing the locket. We all know how important love is as a theme- especially platonic love- and it's driven characters to far more places than just concern or goodness of heart (Sirius' love for Harry got him out of Azkaban, after all). Plus, I suspect that Sirius and Regulus were not always poles apart- factoring in their namesakes' celestial relationship, and considering how well the qualities of Sirius fit ol' Snuffles, I think it's likely she took this under consideration in naming Regulus. To wit: There is more real occultism hidden in the names give to the various stars by astronomers down the ages than has yet been realized. Esoterically Sirius uses Regulus as its lens. - a quote from the Ancient Wisdom Sirius is the star of Christ consciousness and we associate the Christ with the Heart center. Since Sirius is known as the Dog Star (God Star), then the star Regulus (the Heart of the Lion, the Lawgiver) is the "lens," the regulator, of energy to the Earth, stimulating a response in humanity to express this consciousness of the heart, the quality we call love. The Soul is a synonymous word for love; Christ, the Heart consciousness. http://www.souledout.org/cosmology/highlights/regulushighlights/regulushighlights.html A bit dodgy, basing speculation on this sort of thing; but I like the idea. I may be completely off the mark here, but it seems the reason most fitting with the themes and motifs JK has set up in the past (and I like the idea of Sirius spending his life thinking his brother was a silly little twit when, in fact, he died* for, or because of, him). *This is, of course, assuming he's dead. Which I'm not *cough*Stubby*cough* From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 16:15:45 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:15:45 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <42FD968C00013E5A@mta10.wss.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141274 "Ralph Miller" wrote: > Until we have canon explaining exactly > what the "please" on the tower meant [ .] We can have theories but I don't see how we can ever know with certainty what that "please" meant; Dumbledore is dead so he can't say, and the only character's thoughts we readers have direct accesses to is Harry. The obvious explanation of what that "please" meant is as good as any other. > I'm not saying that your viewpoint > is not a valid one, I am saying that > it hasn't been proven to be the only > true and correct one. I agree that my viewpoint has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but in my opinion it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were on a jury I would not hesitate for one second to find Snape guilty of first degree murder. I mean, if somebody else was about to throw Dumbledore off that tower and Snape had prevented it nearly everybody would say that was very strong evidence indeed that Snape was basically a good guy, but the rules of evidence work both ways. Eggplant From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Oct 7 17:24:38 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 17:24:38 -0000 Subject: R.A.B.'s identity confirmed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141275 > "bigestbarda" writes: > > I've been wondering for a while now if the reason Regulus left the > DE was that he was asked to harm, or kill, Sirius. We know Sirius, > James, Lily and Lupin were all members of the original OOP and among > a very small group of people who weren't afraid to call Voldemort by > name (AFAIK, the only other one is DD); we know he's powerfully > magical; a decent dueller and that the Order were being 'picked off > one by one'. I would be surprised if Voldemort hadn't delegated > someone to knock old Padfoot off- and what better a test of loyalty > to him, and the DE 'family', than asking the new recruit to murder > his blood-traitor brother? Doesn't that seem like a very Voldemorty > thing to do? Christina: YES, it really does sound like something LV would do! Oooo, what a bangy idea! I love it. This is very JKR-ish. I am convinced that RAB is, in fact Regulus Black (why mention him so much? Why have him exist at all?), and I've always wondered what his relationship to Sirius was like when they were younger. Something like this would add a whole other element to it. Not to mention the fact that JKR has said that a lot of Sirius-related things will be back in Book 7- the mirror, the motorbike. JKR has also said that she has worked out Sirius's childhood in detail. Having RAB be about Regulus *and* Sirius, as *brothers*, would accomplish a lot and reinforce all the central themes that JKR has given us so far. > "bigestbarda" writes: > We all know how important > love is as a theme- especially platonic love- and it's driven > characters to far more places than just concern or goodness of heart > (Sirius' love for Harry got him out of Azkaban, after all). Christina: Harry's love for Sirius kicked LV out of his mind in the Department of Mysteries. There's also Lily, of course. > "bigestbarda" writes: > I may be completely off the mark here, but it seems the reason most > fitting with the themes and motifs JK has set up in the past (and I > like the idea of Sirius spending his life thinking his brother was a > silly little twit when, in fact, he died* for, or because of, him). Christina: Me too. And I can't help but wonder if this might have something to do with something in PoA that has always bothered me quite a lot- when McGonagall is talking about Sirius becoming the Potters' Secret-Keeper, she says that Sirius was planning on going into hiding himself. This has always struck me as odd. If the Order really was being picked off, "one by one," having Order members go into hiding is essentially taking them out of the fight. I can't imagine Dumbledore allowing his people to do this except for in the most dire of circumstances (ie, the welfare of a child). Not to mention the fact that Sirius loves a good fight and seems to be quite reckless- why would he want to go into hiding (it drives him nuts to be useless in OotP)? Peter Pettigrew had been passing on information about the Potters' whereabouts for a while, but even if he was keeping the Death Eaters equally updated about Sirius, I still can't see Sirius ever voluntarily going into hiding and sitting around while the battle was raging. Maybe one of Dumbledore's spies tipped him off to the fact that Sirius was being specifically targetted, and Dumbledore thought it best to hide him? Christina From kmruddell at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 14:36:12 2005 From: kmruddell at yahoo.com (katydid3626) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:36:12 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141276 > eggplant: > > > By my count Harry saved Snape's life and that of the entire > > > wizard world at least 3 times, and Harry is the only one who > > > has a chance of saving it once more, and Snape still treats > > > Harry like dirt. > > Betsy Hp: > > Yes, but living, breathing dirt. Without Snape, Harry > > wouldn't even be that, and the two other times Harry saved > > the day (I'm assuming Quirrell and the battle at the DoM?) > > would never have occurred. > > Lupinlore: > Errr... and what's your point? What exactly about any of that > gives Snape the moral right to act as he does? Snape is a nasty man, not nice and not compassionate. We see very little evidence of any empathetic tendencies. But there is a big difference between that and evil. It is quite possible for someone to be unpalatable and still basically, and I stress basically moral, when it comes to the bigger picture. katydid From papa at marvels.org Fri Oct 7 17:27:59 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 13:27:59 -0400 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42FD967300015E2F@mta7.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141277 Ralph Miller wrote: >Until we have canon explaining exactly >what the "please" on the tower meant [?.] Eggplant wrote: >We can have theories but I don't see how we can ever know with >certainty what that "please" meant; Dumbledore is dead so he >can't say, and the only character's thoughts we readers have >direct accesses to is Harry. The obvious explanation of what >that "please" meant is as good as any other. RM again - As good as any other also means it could be as equally flawed as any other. I would propose that the explanation is far from obvious as evidenced by the numerous discussions, arguments and interpretations posted to this list. Eggplant wrote: >I agree that my viewpoint has not been proven beyond the shadow >of a doubt, but in my opinion it has been proven beyond a >reasonable doubt. If I were on a jury I would not hesitate for >one second to find Snape guilty of first degree murder. I mean, >if somebody else was about to throw Dumbledore off that tower >and Snape had prevented it nearly everybody would say that was >very strong evidence indeed that Snape was basically a good guy, >but the rules of evidence work both ways. RM again - But even you state that it is an opinion, not a fact. We have been shown on many occasions that things in the WW are not always as they appear. I do agree that the evidence is as strong as the evidence that sent Sirius to Azkaban, oh wait, didn't that turn out to be wrong? Well, it was obvious that Hagrid had, perhaps unintentially, opened the COS, oh. I think any decent attorney could argue this case in such a way that the jury wouldn't be sure whether to hand Snape over to a dementor or take him to lunch. But then again, if we had all the answers and everything was clear we wouldn't need to read the next book and this list would be pretty dull. Of course, this is just my opinion :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 18:48:15 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:48:15 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect -Defender to the Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "mesmer44" wrote: > > ... > > It's hard for me to imagine that he > > could have turned against his family > > as much as he has > Eggplant: > > I don't see why that's hard to believe, Percy has been a SOB from book > 1 and has steadily gone downhill from there. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: The problem with that position is, it's matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. From Percy's perspective it is not he who has turned on his family, but his family who has turned on him. True, Percy was wrong about the Ministry, Harry, and Voldemort, but that doesn't change the way Percy feels he was treated by his family. I'm sure he is convinced that if Bill or Charlie came home with a promotion, it would be cause for celebration, but not Percy ...ooohhh nnnooooo... when he gets a promotion it brings him nothing but criticism and ridicule. In fact, no matter what Percy does, his family, with the exception of his mother, gives him nothing but criticism and ridicule. Really, there is only so much a person can take. I don't deny that Percy is being childish and pigheaded, but he had a good teacher, his whole family are stubborn as mules, hot tempered, pigheaded, and childish. So, I don't excuse Percy completely, but he is has been fighting an overwhelming force his whole life. He has made ever effort to live his life properly, and that effort to do what is 'right' has never brought him anything but misery and hostility. It's no wonder his values are slightly askew given his miserable oppressive unappreciative home life. Entrenched as always in the believe that Percy is misguided, but basically a good guy. At least until the Author makes an alternative view CRYSTAL CLEAR. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 18:50:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:50:14 -0000 Subject: DIY Spell making In-Reply-To: <00b901c5cab6$a760e150$080aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141279 bboyminn wrote: > > > > Which brings us to another aspect, in many cases, the wand movement seems to have precise requirements. I suspect 'wand movement' is both an art and a science in itself. > > > Trekkie responded: > And that makes Snape's remark about "foolish wandwaving" so much more interesting. Obviously Snape, as the HBP, has been able to not just invent the "silly incantations" (yes I know that bit is only from The Media Which Must Not Be Named) but also the accompanying "foolish Wand-waving" that goes with the sectumsempra and the other spells he has alledgedly invented. > > There's something here that seems out of tune to me. Carol notes: First, I'm guessing from your use of "allegedly" that you're not entirely sure that Teen!Snape invented the spells in his Potions book. I, OTOH, am certain that he did invent them based on the adult Snape's anger when Harry tries to use them against him and his complete mastery of the complex countercurse to heal Draco (surely also his own invention). I doubt that anyone else in the school could have saved Draco, including both Madam Pomfrey and Dumbledore. That aside, I agree that something is "out of tune" in Snape's remark about "silly wand waving" in SS/PS. We know almost from the outset that Snape can wave a wand and achieve results without speaking a word: "'Idiot boy!'" snarled Snape, cleaning up the spilled potion with one wave of his wand" (SS Am. ed. 139). Later we see his mumbled incantation when he's countering Quirrell's curse on Harry's broom, which involves either concealed wand movements or wandless magic (BTW, for people in the Dark magic thread, Hagrid refers to the curse on the broom as "Dark magic," SS 190). We again see Snape's prowess with a wand (his "teeny bit" of knowledge about duelling, as Lockhart idiotically puts it) when he knocks Lockhart into the wall with a spectacular Expelliarmus in CoS. Later we learn that he writes his Potions directions on the board with a flick of his wand, we see in OoP that he would have been more than a match for James in a one-on-one duel and in HBP that he invents his own spells and is a spectacular duellist (using "silly wand waving" to deflect Harry's spells). Almost certainly the countercurses Snape used to save Katie Bell from the cursed necklace and Dumbledore from the ring Horcrux also involved the use of a wand in combination with complex incantations that no one else at Hogwarts can perform. (I almost forgot to mention the large number of hexes that he had already mastered before he even started school.) Obviously, he's an expert wand waver from childhood onward. So what's up with the demeaning remark about "silly wand waving" in SS/PS? I'm not sure, but it certainly has nothing to do with Snape's own skill with a wand. It may be sour grapes because he's not allowed to teach the DADA class. (I'm not convinced that he really wants to teach the class, given that he must know that the post is jinxed or cursed, but he also knows that he could teach the students some very interesting hexes, jinxes, and countercurses, none of which they're likely to learn from Quirrell.) I think it's also important that he's addressing first years, most of whom seem to be more interested in learning to use their wands than in putting (rather revolting) ingredients into a cauldron and watching them simmer. The Gryffindors, at least, are much more excited about their DADA class (at least until they find out what a wimp Quirrell appears to be) than about Potions. Even making a feather hover (their first Charms lesson) seems more like magic than chopping up roots and stewing slugs, which undoubtedly seems like *work.* So Snape gives his first years a poetic description of the art and science that is Potions, followed by a snide dismissal of the various classes involving "wand waving" (which he surely knows that the students in general would prefer to be taking). It's an interesting psychological tactic though the effect is somewhat spoiled by his remarks on "dunderheads." If he had kept up the emphasis on the beauty and power of Potions without allowing himself to indulge his resentment at being denied the opportunity to display his own prowess with a wand, he might have inspired his students, but his unpleasant personality works against him. And somehow, even the most poetic description of shimmering fumes doesn't have quite the effect of changing your desk into a pig and back again, as McGonagall does to demonstrate the potential uses of Transfiguration (154). IMO, Snape resorts to attacking "silly wand waving" to vent his frustration at having to teach a subject that the typical Hogwarts "dunderhead" won't appreciate. There may be other reasons for the "silly wand waving" remark that I haven't thought of. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on the subject. Carol From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 7 19:20:47 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:20:47 -0000 Subject: DIY Spell making In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141280 Carol wrote: > There may be other reasons for the "silly wand waving" remark that I > haven't thought of. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on > the subject. Potioncat: It is "foolish wand waving" which changed what I had intended to write. I remembered it being "little wand waving"... So, the actual quote is: "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic." Since we now know that Snape doesn't disdain the wand at all, I think he's referring to the "foolish wand-waving" as performed by First Years and also emphasizing that Potion-making is magic. That's something some list members have doubted. Which supports what Carol said. I don't remember any wand waving by the students in Potions. Except one time when someone was trying to get the flame to re-light under the cauldron. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 19:36:51 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:36:51 -0000 Subject: Good writer - Two Trees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Lupinlore: > > Worst of all, JKR has a bad habit, as I've said before, of writing > > herself into corners and then getting out by, well, cheating. > > ... > > Pippin: > ... > > Harry spent all of OOP learning to accept the reality of death. > That's what that whole thing with the thestrals was about , IMO, > -- finding that he's not the only person who can see them, that > they were there all along, and that he can harness and control > them. > > He also had to accept the reality that wise, kindly, loving adults > can still fail him ... > > I don't think anything got swept under the rug, though obviously > a lot of situations are hanging fire until the conclusion. > > Pippin > bboyminn: I was thinking about this yesterday and the image of two trees came to mind. One normal tree, upright and branching out, and one inverted tree with many branches at the bottom converging upward into a single trunk. We in fandom are the normal tree, we can speculate and pontificate, we can spawn a thousand tangents and create a thousand potential plotlines for the books. We can branch out; we have infinite possibilities. JKRowling on the other hand is the inverted tree. She is narrowing her focus to a single trunk. She can not spawn infinite tangents or plotlines. She has to make her focus narrower and narrower with each book. Certain things must be said, certain things must be done, and the narrower her focus becomes, the few plot and story options she has. Personally, I would have preferred it if the most recent book (HBP) was about the continuation of the DA Club, Harry and Draco fighting over the Black Estate, and the emergence of one or more 'good Slytherins' from the students. That certainly would have made a more interesting story. And, if this were the 'Hardy Boys' or 'Nancy Drew' where the characters are ageless and the author can spawn 100 volumes over the life of the series, then JKR could certainly come up with more interesting stories. THEN the possibilities are near infinite. But she can't. There are things that had to be done, and she is forced to weave a story around those things. That makes the story potential very limited. Take note of the books that are generally considered the best in the series; 'Goblet of Fire' and 'Prisoner of Azkaban'; dead center in the series. Way back then JKR had near infinite story possibilities. When she had room to stray from the central thread, and write interesting and creative sidelines. But we all know that range of possibilies is gone now. There is too much that must be said and done, and too little story left to say and do them. Draco had to do and be what he was. Dumbledore had to do and be what he did. Ron and Hermione had to finally establish the foundation of their relationship because with only one books left, it's now or never. Harry and Ginny had to do the same. In the end, Snape had to do what he did. Given the fact that all the characters had very limited roles to play, I'm sure you must see how that resticted the story possibilities. This (HBP) was a good book, but it was far from the best in the series, and I say that part of the reason for that is because the author has run out of options, not out of ideas, I'm sure much like fan fiction she is bubbling with those, but out of options. Things had to be said and done. Horcruxes had to be established, Voldemort's background had to be laid, Dumbledore had to do his part, Snape had a dark and dangerous role to play, and within those bounds, the story becomes restricted. Let's just hope, that the final story, the final book, hasn't become so resticted that it loses its vitality. I would hate for it to be nothing more that an excuse to resolve the plot. Regardless of the final outcome, I am committed. I HAVE TO KNOW what happened; good or bad. So, I'll buy and read the last book, and live with the satisfaction of finally knowing Harry's fate as well as the fate of his friends. ...and if I'm not satisfied...well, there's always fan fiction. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 19:45:48 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:45:48 -0000 Subject: Uses for Imperius (was: Motivations for Joining DEs) In-Reply-To: <005601c5cad2$e08f7c90$0378400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141282 Mira wrote: Imperius turns its victim into a tool. I don't believe that it is possible to perform partial control under the Imperius curse, i.e. to tell your victim: 'be yourself, except for the bad habits', for the simple reason that the person who is possessed does not have a self anymore. Magpie responded: I think, based on canon, that you actually can do this because it doesn't seem like people under the spell necessarily become zombies. It seems more like movie!hypnosis to me with post-hypnotic suggestions making the person ready to take new instructions, as opposed to real life hypnosis which has no such powers. If you couldn't just be yourself except for certain things I'd think they'd have been able to sniff out all the people under it in the first war. Carol responds to both: While I agree essentially with Mira's view (in the snipped first paragraph) that the Unforgiveables violate free will and that a person under the Imperius Curse is essentially a tool, I think Magpie is right that an Imperioed person can appear to be himself or herself rather than a Zombielike slave. That, in fact, is what makes the Imperius Curse so insidious; it's very difficult to detect. No one in HBP suspected that Madam Rosmerta had been Imperioed. She behaved quite normally to Harry and Dumbledore when they requested to borrow her brooms. And part of Mr. Crouch's Imperius Curse involved acting as if nothing had happened, as if his own DE son were not posing as Mad Eye Moody in order to place Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire and (ultimately) transport him to Voldemort. In the case of Viktor Krum Crucioing Cedric Diggory in front of everyone watching the Third Task of the TWT, it looks as if he's casting an Unforgiveable Curse under his own volition when in fact Crouch!Moody has forced him to do it using the Imperius Curse. So the Imperius Curse not only violates a person's free will, it can be used to make him perform evil deeds that seem to be his own doing. And the Imperius Curse, like the Cruciatus Curse, can be sustained , causing lasting damage to those who try to resist it. Granted, it took only a few hours (probably) of excruciating pain to drive the Longbottoms to insanity and more than half a year for Mr. Crouch to reach the same point, but nevertheless, sustained use of the Imperius Curse on Mr. Crouch drove him to madness. Had he not resisted, he would have been a slave but not a (living) Zombie; his actions would have appeared to be his own, and he could have continued to judge the TWT as if nothing were the matter. Another thing, too--the Imperius Curse makes the unresisting victim feel good, indeed euphoric. It's like a drug that the user do what he would not normally do, including taking physical risks (Neville's gymnastics; Harry jumping over desks, or starting to, which resulted in some serious bruises when he half-resisted the curse). I think what makes the Imperius Curse Dark is primarily that you must desire to violate and manipulate the will of another in order to cast it. But it is also extremely dangerous, both to the victim and to his potential victims, and very difficult to detect. Mr. Crouch was wrong to use it himself and to authorize its use by Aurors, and his fate, however tragic, is a clear example of poetic justice. Carol, who is attempting to compose this post using Yahoo's Beta version of HTML and is half afraid to view the results [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 7 20:07:18 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:07:18 -0000 Subject: The potion maker Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141283 I'm increasingly curious to know who concocted the cave potion. Voldemort's skill and focus don't appear to be in potions. Riddle's first impression of magic was the power of a wand: After finding out he was a wizard, Riddle eyed Dumbledore's wand 'greedily' and demanded to know where to get one. Later Ollivander said Voldemort's powerful wand did indeed perform 'terrible but great' deeds, and the duel with Dumbledore at the MOM highlighted Voldemort's skill in Transfiguration and perhaps Charms as well (excellent in DADA too, if only to stay one step ahead of the enemy). So most likely Voldemort contracted out for the potion, using one of four possible experts: Lily, Pettigrew, Snape or Slughorn. 1) Lily can be discarded immediately as a suspect . 2) Pettigrew we know little about his potion-making history, but he did whip up the re-birthing potion correctly. Given he was only in Voldemort's ranks for a year, and had more important spying activities to attend to, he seems unlikely as well. 3) Snape is the most obvious person, a DE and potion whiz kid, except for the fact of timing. Voldemort secured the locket when he was only a few years out of school. By the time he visited Dumbledore for the DADA position, he had changed significantly. The locket horcrux was likely one of the first horcruxes he made after the diary, and probably hid shortly thereafter along with the ring at the Gaunts. Which leaves us with Slughorn, in the cave, with a potion kit ;). Slughorn's horcrux discussion with Riddle would certainly be enough to send him into hiding when Voldemort returned to power. Riddle laid his entire plan at Slughorn's feet, and Voldemort must think of him as the only living person aware of his 7-part horcruxes. I just have a nagging feeling there's another reason Slughorn went on the run when Voldemort returned to his body. Dumbledore mentioned Sluggy's 'considerable talents' and we find out he's an accomplished Occlumens as well as saavy enough to carry antidotes on his person. He's definitely not an old buffer! But he does have a great weakness, a huge appetite for creature comforts, flattery and attachment to powerful people, a person Voldemort could easily manipulate in other words. Slughorn may have uneasily or unwittingly helped Voldemort in exchange for creature comforts and connections with powerful people; Dumbledore probably wasn't the only one who showed up at Slughorn's door with a 'jewel' to be collected, expecting something in exchange. Once Voldemort turned to vapor at GH, the situation changed for Slughorn. He and Dumbledore were the only people who suspected why Voldemort didn't die that night, and Slughorn alone had the information about multiple horcruxes. When Voldemort returned to his body in GOF, Slughorn went into hiding, knowing Voldemort could not be killed. The next question is: Why does the story need Slughorn to make the potion? It's easier to have Voldemort concoct his own potion and be done with it. The problem is LV can't answer any of Harry's questions. The fake locket and Dumbledore's death are shrouded in mystery, and at some point the Trio will figure out Dumbledore's strange mutterings during the potion-drinking were significant for either the locket question or Dumbledore's immediate need for Snape (and perhaps subsequent death). Hermione will naturally try to discover what the potion was and perhaps won't find it in Moste Potente Potions, so they will ask Slughorn a few hypothetical questions. He will blanche, realizing what he did to help Voldemort, and likely the Trio will manipulate him into giving the information. I was joking about Slughorn actually being in the cave to make the potion, but it might come in handy if he had been! Unfortunately, I think Slughorn knows too much, and could be next on the chopping block without Dumbledore protecting Hogwarts. I'd imagine Voldemort isn't looking to coerce him this time around so much as kill him. Jen From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 20:57:02 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:57:02 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <42FD967300015E2F@mta7.wss.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141284 "Ralph Miller" wrote: > But even you state that it is > an opinion, not a fact. Of course, but if you're on a jury you'll almost never discover the FACT that the defendant is guilty, rather you have to ask yourself is your opinion that he is guilty strong enough to send Snape to the electric chair, and in my case it is. > I think any decent attorney could > argue this case in such a way that > the jury wouldn't be sure whether > to hand Snape over to a dementor > or take him to lunch. Now that I believe, after all OJ Simpson walked free, however it's more an indictment of the jury system than anything else. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 7 21:06:27 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:06:27 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141285 "katydid3626" wrote: > Snape is a nasty man, not nice and > not compassionate. We see very > little evidence of any empathetic > tendencies. But there is a big > difference between that and evil. Actually I think a nasty uncompassionate man with no empathy is the very definition of evil, and I certainly don't understand why a person with those tendencies would be loyal to Dumbledore and devote 16 years of his life to defeating Voldemort. Eggplant From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 7 21:36:34 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:36:34 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141286 Eggplant: > I agree that my viewpoint has not been proven beyond the shadow of a > doubt, but in my opinion it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. > If I were on a jury I would not hesitate for one second to find Snape > guilty of first degree murder. I mean, if somebody else was about to > throw Dumbledore off that tower and Snape had prevented it nearly > everybody would say that was very strong evidence indeed that Snape > was basically a good guy, but the rules of evidence work both ways. Jen: Speaking of trials, I read a snippet about the Accio conference trial against Snape. Apparently in English law (maybe US too?) there only had to be a 20% chance Dumbledore was dying from the cave potion and beyond the help of human aid for Snape to be found not-guilty of murder from casting the AK. Since you can't kill a man twice , the defense only had to prove doubt that any human (magical) intervention would have saved Dumbledore at that point. When Snape looked at Dumbledore, surely his potions and healing expertise told him what shape DD was in. Unfortunately, WE don't get to know what he saw, darn the bad luck. So either he cast an AK at a already dying man, or at a man whom he alone could probably save and chose not to. That seems to be the real question here. Jen, certain a legal professional could explain this more accurately. From ibchawz at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 21:55:25 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:55:25 -0000 Subject: More random musings on HBP. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141287 Valky wrote: > 1. Yet again Petunia has an odd reaction to the mention of Lily's > Blood Protection. While Vernon, clearly put out by what he percieves > to be the impudence of Dumbledore making plans for his Household, > Petunia OTOH, looks oddly flushed. ibchawz responds: I think Petunia is also worried that it runs out when Harry "comes of age" at age 17 instead of 18 in the Muggle world. We have received clues in other books that she knows more than she lets on. She knew about the dementors of Azkaban from the horrible boy was this James, Snape, or someone else she was referring to? In addition, we still need a good answer for the "Remember my Last" howler that she received. I think Petunia will play an important, even if small, role in Book 7. Will she be the one to perform magic late in life? Even if she doesn't, she could provide important information pertaining to the Horcrux hunt or the events at Godric's Hollow. Valky wrote: > 3. When Dumbledore is discussing the Prophecy with Harry, DD > unexpectedly insists that Harry share it with Hermione and Ron, > mentioning that it would be disservice to them if he kept it to > himself. ibchawz responds: Another reason that DD could have done this is that he realized how angry Harry was when Ron and Hermione would not share any info with Harry in the beginning of OoTP. He could have simply been trying to avoid strife between the trio to ensure that they were together for the road ahead. Valky wrote: > 4. Dumbledore makes another interesting demand of Harry before he > leaves, he tells Harry to keep his invisibilty clok t all times with > him, just in case. This is of course a form of protection for Harry in > the simplest sense, but I do wonder to what other end Dumbldore > imagines he cloak will be useful for, if Harry uses it 'wisely'. ibchawz responds: Could this be because DD already knew about Draco's task? If DD was expecting trouble at Hogwart's, he would want Harry to be prepared. It appears that DD was expecting trouble at Hogwart's since he had Order members guarding the place. ibchawz From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Oct 7 22:23:30 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:23:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c5cb8d$c04323e0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141288 Jen: Speaking of trials, I read a snippet about the Accio conference trial against Snape. Apparently in English law (maybe US too?) there only had to be a 20% chance Dumbledore was dying from the cave potion and beyond the help of human aid for Snape to be found not-guilty of murder from casting the AK. Since you can't kill a man twice , the defense only had to prove doubt that any human (magical) intervention would have saved Dumbledore at that point. When Snape looked at Dumbledore, surely his potions and healing expertise told him what shape DD was in. Unfortunately, WE don't get to know what he saw, darn the bad luck. So either he cast an AK at a already dying man, or at a man whom he alone could probably save and chose not to. That seems to be the real question here. Jen, certain a legal professional could explain this more accurately. Sherry now: I don't think that is the law in the US, otherwise Jack--can't spell his last name, the so called doctor who practices physician assisted suicide--would not have been put on trial and gone to prison for his actions. And personally, I find that kind of scary, because anyone who could determine the situation in the right percentage could get away with murder. My hair raises with fear over that one. For me, it all still comes down to the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore. I don't care why or how; what curse it was or wasn't. Unless Dumbledore is secretly alive and it was all an elaborate hoax, nothing will excuse Snape to me. Sherry From anurim at yahoo.com Fri Oct 7 18:23:52 2005 From: anurim at yahoo.com (Mira) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Good writer (was: Harry IS Snape!) Message-ID: <20051007182352.48062.qmail@web32612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141289 lupinlore wrote: > I think it's several things. Thank you for taking the time to write this, Lupinlore, and I am sorry for the late reply. I submitted one shortly after your post, which was (rightly) returned to me by the list elves, and it took me a while to think about how to make it look and sound better. You have transcribed exactly my first impressions about HBP. However, the more I think about it, the more it seems that these are subjective reactions, and the harder it is to put the finger on what hurts. I'll analyse below what worked for me and what not, in an attempt to find an explanation for why I, for once, reacted to HBP the way I did. > In the case of HBP, I think the romance hurt a lot. > It just wasn't well done or particularly believable, > even taking into account that these are teenagers. I agree with you that (for me!) some developments (i.e. Hermione loves Ron and Harry loves Ginny) are quite unexpected. I much prefer the shy version of the youngest Weasley to the amigdal-sucking, tomboy bully without a trace of femininity that we (or at least I) see in books 5 and 6 (the awkward Cho-Harry romance was at least interesting!). I do want to hide away and die of embarrassment each time I read the Hollywood-style kiss after the last Quidditch match and I find the various animals that awake in Harry's body with various occasions become quite boring. On the other hand, rationally I can appreciate the humour and realism of Ron's Lavender experience, as I do find satisfying enough the psychological insides provided by Hermione's behavior and by Harry older-brother delusions. My mind finds them interesting enough, in principle, it is just that, unlike with previous romantic developments, I feel zero connection with what I read. But on the whole, I am fine with the romance part. > However, I think more to the point JKR is hurt by > the way the > different books come together, or rather fail to > come together. The > radical changes in tone from one book to another are > jarring and work > hard against suspension of disbelief. Much worse, > the characters > develop in odd and unbelievable ways, generally > dictated by the > demands of the plot. I hold to the idea that in > good writing > character dictates plot, not the other way around. > In the last > couple of books JKR has violated that maxim a > depressing number of > times. This could indeed account for part of my disappointment. The funny thing is that, for me, characters seem coherent enough for the first five books; it is only in HBP that I feel like with those soap operas where they change the actor who plays a certain role between two seasons. I know Dumbledore is Dumbledore, he just does not look like Dumbledore. I know Hermione is Hermione, it is just that she has earned a completely new face in this book. It goes for most of the others. Harry is called Harry, but he does not have any of the distinctive features that made Harry Harry, he is suddenly a Dumbledore clone who cannot do anything wrong, except infallible Dumbledore does make mistakes these days. It felt a lot like HBP was about completely different characters than the rest of the books. Which, somehow, all seem less funny that they used to be. The book is funny enough at times, but most characters have become, frankly, a little boring. Even with Luna, who I believe has two of the most memorable lines in HBP, we are reminded that she has a knack for uttering embarrassing truths, but Luna never did this in OotP. It is not that she is not a better, more interesting character this way. It is just that she is a different character than she was before. > To make matters worse, the plot lines are often > dictated by tired and > predictable formulas. JKR herself has said that > Sirius and > Dumbledore both died because the standard formulas > of hero literature > require that Harry lose his father figures. Not a > very good reason > to kill a couple of characters with whom she might > have done far more > interesting and original things, and even much > deeper and more > insightful things from the standpoint of writing and > literature. > Also, be honest, who that has ever played D&D could > read about > the "quest for the seven horcruxes" and not at least > titter, if not > outright guffaw? It was like she walked into a > comic-book shop and > decided to use the plot of the first old D&D module > she found lying > in the Clearance Sale box. Again I agree only partly (possibly because I never played D&D and have no idea what it actually is:) In a sense, I loved every moment of HBP, and those I did not, for instance Harry's speedy recovery, I can still accept as realistic enough and necessary to the plot. I loved Horace. I loved Harry's new aptitude in Potions. I loved that Draco could not become a murderer (although this does not necessarily makes him a better person - I think he is still a few lines short of that). I loved Ron's birthday surprises and the first chapter and Luna commenting Quidditch and Snape being in as much pain as the trapped Fang when called a coward, I loved Harry's new appreciation of his uncool friends and his celebrity status, I loved the fact that Molly and Arthur still call each other by pet names, I loved McGonagall standing up for Neville and valuing Hagrid's advice, I LOVED Fleur showing that beauty does not equal shallowness. I could live with the prophecy being overruled by the power of choice, although it felt like an idea which Jo got from fans and liked so much that she did not care about practically cancelling all significance of OotP, I didn't even hate the idea of the Horcruxes, provided that Jo links it in future interviews with deeper concepts, for instance by proclaiming how hate breeds hate, I loved this and that and the other and I did not mind the rest, but all in all, I just could not care less. Perhaps I felt emotionally anesthetized by Dumbledore's death, which I knew from the spoilers, but somehow, it all felt so remote, so cold, so inconsequential, so average. > Worst of all, JKR has a bad habit, as I've said > before, of writing > herself into corners and then getting out by, well, > cheating. It's > like the old Saturday matinees where you see a car > go over a cliff > with the hero inside and spend all week wondering > how he's going to > survive, only to return the next week and be treated > to a scene where > the hero jumped out of the car BEFORE it went over > the cliff. I am > among those who thought JKR made some fairly serious > mistakes with > OOTP, but I was hoping she would deal with them > fairly. Instead, she > just swept most of the challenging plot-lines > (Harry's anger and > guilt, Dumbledore's complicity in the Dursleys abuse > of Harry, > grieving over Sirius, house unity, the development > of Neville and > Luna, McGonagall's mishandling of Harry and the > Umbridge situation, > Harry's relationship with Lupin in the wake of > Sirius' death, even > much of Harry's hatred of Snape) under the rug with > either a couple > of brief sentences or with no mention at all. I am one of the few readers who actually liked OotP. Despite the fact that Order members seem to come and go and plot quite a lot compared to how little they seem to be doing, despite the flat prophecy climax, I enjoyed the writing in Book 5. The one thing that spoiled it for me was Dolores Umbridge. Not that I haven't seen, uhm, unsatisfied women becoming blood-thirsty tyrants before; it is just that she felt too, well, too much. But on the whole I still enjoyed OotP. I don't see McGo's attitude as misguided, on the contrary, I think Harry should have appreciated that she treated him, for once, as an adult and an equal and the many signs of support she gave to him; in fact I have enjoyed McGo steadily more in the last two books. I loved Angry!Harry and Depressed!Harry, I think they were described in an exquisitely realistic way; I loved Luna and the new Neville and St. Mungo's and SPEW and Grawp and all the things that other readers found irritating. Yes, the writing was not perfect, but I still found it thoroughly entertaining and emotionally involving. And I believe (read: hope) that most loose threads would be tied quite elegantly in Book 7, so I don't take issue with them as yet. > Finally, she gave us a plotline (the whole Snape > plotline) in HBP > that was so blatantly manipulative it felt like she > was wearing > boxing gloves instead of using the delicate touch > that was needed. > And, given the problems above, she leaves little > faith that she'll > resolve it without a lot of rug-sweeping and > hand-waving. Well, I believe that she enjoys her fans' theories a little TOO much. Knowing that we hang on her each word for clues, I think that she gives us a lot of words, not only in Snape's story, whose only purpose is to mislead us and start us on funny theories she could laugh about. I don't find this particularly nice, but on the other hand, I agree that after the often abusing scrutiny we subject her to, she has the right to at least a bit of fun. > In the wake of all of that, I think most of the > books (with the > probable exception of OOTP) are good judged on their > own merits, but > they don't fit together smoothly or believably -- > even allowing for > the "Harry growing up" effect that is sometimes > trotted out to excuse > some of the roughness. All in all, the story arc > and especially the > development of the characters and the follow-through > of challenging > plotlines just aren't up to the potential that shone > through in JKR's > better work, particularly PoA. PoA is still my favorite too. I simply love that book. I believe it is the last written before Warner Bros started developing the movies, and I believe it shows. And with this I come to what I believe are the real reasons why I did not enjoy HBP as much as the other HP books. I believe that this impression is based mainly on off-the-page mechanisms. For once, I have loved the books for a long time, but I became involved in fandom only between OotP and HBP. Since then, I have read so many utterly excellent thoughts on the Harry Potter world, from people so talented and intelligent, that almost anything Jo would have written was bound to sound a little disappointing. Not because she is not an excellent writer, which I believe she is, but simply because the standard was too high already. It could also be that I have read more and my taste has evolved in the last years, but this does not explain why I still love the first five books whole-heartedly. More importantly, I believe that Jo's writing and interests have evolved as well, which I see as the reason why her style varies so wildly between different books. I will resist saying that she seems now to write a lot more for the sake of writing than because she loves the characters and her story, I won't even press the issue that her books read a lot more like a script these days. Whichever way I look at this issue, and much as I would love to read about Harry and his friends forever, I believe that seven books is probably too long a series for an author to keep interest, to write tightly and consistently and to stay committed to the same characters all the way through. I think Jo is ready for different projects now, and that such a long attachment to a single idea is never very wise. I am adding this paragraph after having read Pippin's _excellent_ post about OotP (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141269). I must confess I never looked at it this way, but I am entirely convinced that her/his interpretation is correct, and I am looking forward to anything she/he has to say about HBP, which I am sure would refine my understanding of it too. Mira __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Oct 7 20:00:03 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:00:03 -0000 Subject: Good writer - Two Trees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141290 Lupinlore: > > > Worst of all, JKR has a bad habit, as I've said before, of writing > > > herself into corners and then getting out by, well, cheating. Steve: > This (HBP) was a good book, but it was far from the best in the > series, and I say that part of the reason for that is because the > author has run out of options, not out of ideas, I'm sure much like > fan fiction she is bubbling with those, but out of options. Things had > to be said and done. Horcruxes had to be established, Voldemort's > background had to be laid, Dumbledore had to do his part, Snape had a > dark and dangerous role to play, and within those bounds, the story > becomes restricted. > > Let's just hope, that the final story, the final book, hasn't become > so resticted that it loses its vitality. I would hate for it to be > nothing more that an excuse to resolve the plot. Regardless of the > final outcome, I am committed. I HAVE TO KNOW what happened; good or > bad. So, I'll buy and read the last book, and live with the > satisfaction of finally knowing Harry's fate as well as the fate of > his friends. > I think you've hit the nail solidly on the head, Steve. The problem is that JKR established an ending long ago. But since then her story, like all even reasonably well-established stories, has become a living thing. It has grown and branched and twisted in ways she probably did not fully envision or expect, or at least did not fully appreciate from an early vantage point. As she moved into the last couple of books she was faced with a story that probably did not really match the ending anymore. It had outgrown the ending. The story, as you say, had branched and ramified and taken on implications that the ending was never meant to contain. In order to reach the preset ending, she had to start narrowing drastically -- or pruning to use the tree image. She had to take the story into compressed routes that required dropping many of the themes and implications that had grown so naturally out of the living story. Things that could not be contained within the pre- envisioned end -- be they dystopian implications of Dumbledore's decisions, Harry's anger and hurt and grief, Luna and Neville's development, or whatever -- had to be radically pruned and shaped into forms that do not fit the organic pattern of the story as it actually developed. As I said before, it is a case of plot dictating everything else -- which makes for all sorts of problems and mischief. As you say, Steve, we can only hope that the ending justifies the route. Lupinlore From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Fri Oct 7 21:38:50 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (M. Thitathan) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:38:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The potion maker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051007213851.3324.qmail@web26809.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141291 Jen Reese wrote : I'm increasingly curious to know who concocted the cave potion. Voldemort's skill and focus don't appear to be in potions. Riddle's first impression of magic was the power of a wand ----- So most likely Voldemort contracted out for the potion, using one of four possible experts: Lily, Pettigrew, Snape or Slughorn. CH3ed: But according to Slughorn's memory where he and young Tom Riddle,jr discussed horcruxes Riddle appeared to be one of Slug's favorite students (and Slug taught Potion). Slug even complimented Riddle for being "more knowledgeable than half the staff," in front of other students. So it seems to me LV is probably not worse than above average in his potion making skill either. --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 01:41:06 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 01:41:06 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <001401c5cb8d$c04323e0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141292 Sherry: > I don't think that is the law in the US, otherwise Jack--can't spell his > last name, the so called doctor who practices physician assisted > suicide--would not have been put on trial and gone to prison for his > actions. Carol: Kevorkian? Sherry: And personally, I find that kind of scary, because anyone who > could determine the situation in the right percentage could get away with murder. My hair raises with fear over that one. For me, it all still comes down to the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore. I don't care why or how; what curse it was or wasn't. Unless Dumbledore is secretly alive and it was all an elaborate hoax, nothing will excuse Snape to me. Carol: Even if killing him was the only way to save Draco and Harry and get the Death Eaters out of the school? If Snape had died (killed by the UV or the Death Eaters), quite possibly both boys would have died as well. And there was no way to save Dumbledore, who would have been killed by the Death Eaters if he wasn't killed by the potion first. I'm not saying that's the case, but *if* it's the case, wouldn't it at least complicate matters and partially excuse Snape? It does for me. Carol From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 8 02:38:56 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 02:38:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore dying from the potion (Re: Harry IS Snape.) In-Reply-To: <001401c5cb8d$c04323e0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141293 > Jen: Speaking of trials, I read a snippet about the Accio > conference trial against Snape. Apparently in English law (maybe > US too?) there only had to be a 20% chance Dumbledore was dying > from the cave potion and beyond the help of human aid for Snape to > be found not-guilty of murder from casting the AK. > Sherry now: > And personally, I find that kind of scary, because anyone who > could determine the situation in the right percentage could get > away with murder. My hair raises with fear over that one. For me, > it all still comes down to the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore. I > don't care why or how; what curse it was or wasn't. Unless > Dumbledore is secretly alive and it was all an elaborate hoax, > nothing will excuse Snape to me. Jen: I re-read my post and forgot a critical element. There was some kind of time limit on how quickly a person was dying from the other means, like within 60 minutes. So the jury would have to believe there was a 20% chance Dumbledore was *imminently* dying from the potion in order for that to be considered the cause of death. Just wanted to try to get the technical information straight, not trying to change your mind, Sherry! I think the moment Dumbledore knew the damage from the potion was irreversible was when he allowed his wand to be blasted away by Draco. A full-strength Dumbledore could take on Draco and safeguard Harry under the Invisibility cloak without losing his wand. This is the man who told Fudge he could try to put him into Azkaban, but he would quickly break out; who brought down a room full of witches/wizards when they tried to arrest him in OOTP; who dueled Voldemort while at the same time attempting to safeguard Harry. I'm overly sentimental, but watching Dumbledore lose his wand was heartbreaking. That moment symbolized the point of no return for me, when all Dumbledore could do was attempt to salvage some good from a night that had gone so horribly wrong. So then the question became not one of *saving* Dumbledore anymore, but of how to get the DE's away from him. In my reading of the scene, they were circling him like vultures and taking advantage of his weakened, wandless state. The thought that Fenrir might rip into DD when he was defenseless or that the DE's might decide to take him back to Voldemort still alive, and do heinous things to him until he died, was horrific to imagine and yet so plausible with a souless group like the DE's. Even though Snape's AK completely shocked me, there was a part of me relieved to see Dumbledore fall off the tower away from their sneering faces and vulgar threats. We aren't privy to what Snape was thinking in that moment unfortunately, but most likely he was professionally capable of assessing Dumbledore's state, and knew what effect the potion was having on him. For all Snape's weaknesses, his expertise in potions and as a healer appear to be his strengths. From there, personal opinion rules, and my opinion is Snape quickly calculated the risks and acted. He wasn't motivated by hatred or doubt or selfishness or noblity or goodness or anything other than survival, and he made a choice to do something neither right nor easy in my mind, an act without a clear place on the Dumbledore continuum of choice. He may have saved himself from the UV in the process or perhaps it was a moot point since Dumbledore was dying anyway. It hardly seems to matter really, his fate was sealed the moment he entered the tower. Jen From juli17 at aol.com Sat Oct 8 02:44:52 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:44:52 EDT Subject: Intention in Magic (was Re: Motivations for Joining DEs) Message-ID: <1c8.32bd64c6.30788ca4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141294 > Julie: > I agree. At first I was a bit bothered by the fact that Dumbledore > never chided Harry for his more recent misdeeds, both snooping > into Snape's memories in the Pensieve, and using Sectumsempra > curse on Draco. But this is standard Dumbledore. He doesn't > need to chide or punish Harry--that's why he has Snape! Snape-- > and to a lesser extent, McGonagall--acts as the disciplinarian, and > Dumbledore leaves Snape to play that role since he has his own > critical part to play as Harry's mentor. And he let's Snape play it > the way Snape wants, because Snape not only delivers the actual > punishments--detentions, etc--but provides a perfect example of > how Harry could end up if he doesn't eventually take those lessons > to heart. Lupinlore: Sigh. And we're back to Machiavellian!Manipulative!Dumbledore again. That is one of the main things I dislike about much of the DDM!Snape speculation, is that it involves strained and contrived plots about Dumbledore's great, grand, secretive, master plan. I'm not sure that DDM!Snape necessarily requires such contrivances, but they do seem to figure prominently in the discussions. I certainly hope JKR doesn't go that way, as it would be unbelievable and ham- fisted. Julie: I don't advocate the idea that DDM!Snape requires a Manipulative Dumbledore. All DDM!Snape means to me is that Snape agreed to work for/with Dumbledore to bring about the eventual and final demise of Voldemort, and he has kept that promise even while he may have made some ill-advised decisions along the way (such as taking the Unbreakable Vow). And I don't think Dumbledore being more aware of what's going on around him than he sometimes appears requires a Manipulative Dumbledore either. Lupinlore: Isn't it much simpler, not to mention much more in keeping with the evidence we have, that Dumbledore doesn't confront Harry about various things because, well, he really isn't very worried about them? And that he lets Snape go his way because he needs the information Snape feeds him and, as JKR says, he's unfortunately become so detached that he doesn't fully appreciate the emotional havoc Snape causes? Julie: I do agree Dumbledore doesn't confront Harry about some things because he isn't worried about them. But there may be additional reasons that don't unnecessarily complicate the story. For instance, the Occlumency lessons become a moot point after the incident at the DoM. They were intended to keep Voldemort out of Harry's mind, but once they failed, Dumbledore has no reason to worry about them any longer, and no reason to throw in Harry's face that his lack of effort and his snooping in Snape's pensieve partly contributed to that failure. And that works with the Crucio attempt and Sectumsempra also. For Dumbledore, what's done is done. I think also that Dumbledore does appreciate the emotional 'havoc' Snape creates in Harry. (And only in Harry, BTW, as even Neville had no long term effects from Snape's less than tender teaching methods.) He may continue to *hope* that Harry and Snape will learn to appreciate each other's abilities even if they will never like each other, but he'd have to be brain-dead not to see that it isn't happening, year after year (even in HBP, he's still telling Harry to say *Professor* Snape, not to mention repeating how much he trusts Snape ad infintum.) Julie earlier: > I'm not convinced Dumbledore is in the dark about much that goes > on with Harry though. He may know about the Crucio curse, in which > case he would also know Harry couldn't do it. He did know about the > Sectumsempra, but Snape is already punishing Harry for that, so > why does Dumbledore need to say anything? And given the eventual > result of Harry not learning Occlumency--Sirius's death--Dumbledore > must figure Harry learned his lesson there. (Even if Harry is blaming > Snape for that death, he knows he had a part in everything that led > up to that confrontation with Bella too. If he had taken Occlumency > seriously and not laid out the welcome mat for Voldemort, things > might have been different.) Lupinlore: And yet DD himself seems to dismiss that line of thought, first by saying it is not Harry's ability to control himself that saved him, but his emotions themselves. Also he admits the whole Occlumency episode was a fiasco and takes the blame, quite rightly, on himself. I see no evidence that he intends Harry to learn any lesson at all other than the one he layed out in his office at the end of OOTP, that he, Dumbledore, can make mistakes. Julie: Again, Harry learned a lesson without Dumbledore spelling it out for him. Harry admits to himself that he blames Snape to avoid looking at his part in that fiasco. What would be the point of Dumbledore pointing out Harry's part of the blame? It's in character for Dumbledore to take the lion's share of the blame, because he is the leader, who should have known Snape was the wrong person to teach Harry, and perhaps that Harry was not capable of mastering Occlumency. But also because he would spare Harry any more pain than he's already enduring. Julie earlier: > > I'm pretty sure part of Dumbledore's "Severus, please.." included > not only getting the DEs away and keeping Hogwarts students safe, > along with Draco and Harry (physically), but perhaps also finishing > the final part in training Harry, which may have included stopping Harry > from doing any Unforgivables during those hyper-emotional moments > after Dumbledore's death. > Lupinlore: Well, of course Snape was also saving his own hide from a great deal of pain by blocking said unforgiveables, now wasn't he? I see no evidence of Snape "training" Harry at all -- and I really never have seen any evidence that he takes his duty to teach Harry seriously. He ends as he began -- a bitter, self-centered, evil (in the sense of being an emotional child abuser, even if he turns out not to be a pawn of Voldemort) little man. Julie: Yes, he does save himself a great deal of pain, but if he wanted to, he could certainly turn the Crucio around on Harry, instead of simply blocking it and telling Harry "No unforgivables from you!" He also doesn't need to remind Harry to close his mind and shut his mouth, or he'll never succeed, etc. Why is he wasting all that breath when he could be torturing that brat he hates so much? Why deny himself such pleasure? And while Snape was saving himself physical pain, he was in emotional pain (akin to Fang in the burning house) when Harry accused him of cowardice. The cause of that pain is speculation-- for some it's because he *is* a coward and he can't stand the truth, and for me and others it's because he just did something that took more courage than he's ever had to summon (AKing his dying mentor in the service of a greater good). I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on Snape at the end of HBP--whether he is the bitter, self-centered, evil little man that you perceive, or the bitter, mean but conflicted man whose personal moral code and sense of loyalty have led him to make some very painful sacrifices that I perceive. Only book 7 will reveal the truth. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sat Oct 8 03:13:32 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:13:32 EDT Subject: Harry is Snape Message-ID: <66.60f3b7c3.3078935c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141295 Eggplant: > I agree that my viewpoint has not been proven beyond the shadow of a > doubt, but in my opinion it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. > If I were on a jury I would not hesitate for one second to find Snape > guilty of first degree murder. I mean, if somebody else was about to > throw Dumbledore off that tower and Snape had prevented it nearly > everybody would say that was very strong evidence indeed that Snape > was basically a good guy, but the rules of evidence work both ways Julie: The problem is, what we observed on the Tower is *not* all the evidence that would be presented. Far from it. Not in the real world anyway. To use one example, there would be an autopsy, which would reveal the state of Dumbledore's health. What if the autopsy proved Dumbledore was dying, that the potion he drank had progressed past the point of no return, and no one could have saved him? And what if the pathologist also noticed clear changes in Dumbledore's cells, changes that indicated he was turning into something not human--an Inferi for instance? That alone would be enough to cast strong doubt on a conviction of murder. If a jury was convinced Snape delivered the killing blow to *save* Dumbledore from a fate worse than death, he might well be acquitted of all charges. If they didn't believe him, it still might be nothing more than assault, given Dumbledore was already a dead man (and PotionsMaster/DADAExpert Snape would recognize that fact). And that's just one part of the evidence that would come into play. A whole lot of evidence rests on intent--and while Snape's past and his teaching methods certainly would go against him, other actions he's taken for DD and the Order, his lack of retaliation against Harry's attempted Crucio's, his quick removal of the DEs from Hogwarts, etc, would be cited in his defense. I'd say it's very premature to judge the extent of Snape's guilt. There is more evidence to be had--much more--which we are sure to get in Book 7. Until then, we're all just guessing. Julie (who figures most fans on this list would be summarily dismissed from consideration for the above jury, given the numerous posts showing a tendency toward prejudgment on both sides!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 04:10:59 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 04:10:59 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141296 "justcarol67" wrote: > Even if killing him [Dumbledore] was > the only way to save Draco and Harry > and get the Death Eaters out of the school? Harry was safe, the Death Eaters didn't even know he was there, and if I had to decide between letting Draco die and murdering Dumbledore it's a no brainer. Goodbye Draco. > If Snape had died (killed by the UV Then even if Snape was a good guy he would have received no sympathy from me for making such an incredibly stupid vow. > or the Death Eaters Snape demonstrated that he was far more powerful than any of the other Death Eaters who seemed quite terrified of him, I think Snape would have had a good chance of killing them all especially as he had the element of surprise on his side, but he never tried, he decided to murder Dumbledore instead. > there was no way to save Dumbledore, > who would have been killed by the > Death Eaters Yes if Snape chose not to help Dumbledore, and he did. > if he wasn't killed by the potion first. We don't know that the potion was killing Dumbledore, and besides at that point there was no way Snape could have known that Dumbledore drank the potion, an hour earlier even Dumbledore didn't know that. In fact there is no way Snape could have even known such a potion existed. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 04:17:45 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 04:17:45 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape In-Reply-To: <66.60f3b7c3.3078935c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141297 juli17 at a... wrote: > I'd say it's very premature to judge > the extent of Snape's guilt. And I'd say in the real world not one person on Death Row has evidence against them stronger than what we have against Snape. Eggplant From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Oct 8 04:42:43 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 04:42:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: He Plays With Violence Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141298 He Plays With Violence (HBP, Chap. 13) To the tune of He Plays the Violin from Peter Stone's musical 1776 MIDI at: http://www.hamienet.com/midi6612.html Dedicated to the late great Dr. K Mrs. Cole in her first solo! THE SCENE: London in the 1940s, at MRS. COLE'S orphanage. The proprietor of the establishment discusses the case of one of her more difficult residents with Albus Dumbledore. MRS. COLE Oh, he never wept as newborn He often seemed quite weird He has always been a bully And now he is so feared It's so hard to begin Even though I'm buzzed on gin Even so He plays with violence He conjures up forces immense In his Reich he will strike Ev'ry tike he dislikes We all know we'd not better fiddle With the young Thomas M. Riddle We've often been stung Hi-hi-hi-hi Though he's so young He acts with violence As though he's a Lord or some Prince He's a guy all too sly Who loves fear crystal clear We all hope that he won't dish up What he gave Amy Bishop We've often been stung Hi-hi-hi-hi Though he's so young That bunny casualty Must have some causality When it died he denied That he lied out of pride For he is one quite mean little kid'll That all call Thomas M.Riddle And ever he'll be Hi-hi-hi-hi Through much misery He plays with violence ..! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 06:19:47 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 06:19:47 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect -Defender to the Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141299 "Steve" wrote: > From Percy's perspective it is not > he who has turned on his family, > but his family who has turned on him. Yes but no man is a villain in his own eyes. > He has made ever effort to live his life properly, I disagree, Percy happily took part in a proceeding that attempted to destroy a boy and send him to Azkaban, a boy who had always been kind to him and who saved his sister's life. Percy tried to destroy the friendship between Ron and Harry. Percy refused his mother's Christmas present and didn't visit his father in the hospital when he was near death or even ask about him, then he called Umbrage "delightful". I believe you could summarize all the good things Percy did in 6 books in one short paragraph, the bad things would fill several chapters. > Percy is misguided, but basically a good guy. Would you say that if he had another last name? Just as good people can come from bad families (Serious Black), bad people can come from good families. And besides, a black sheep would be fun, our story does not need another good Weasley, an evil Weasley is much more interesting. Eggplant From juli17 at aol.com Sat Oct 8 06:31:30 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 06:31:30 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141300 > > juli17 at a... wrote: > > > I'd say it's very premature to judge > > the extent of Snape's guilt. > > And I'd say in the real world not one person on Death Row has evidence > against them stronger than what we have against Snape. > > Eggplant > Julie again: As I pointed out, in the real world if further evidence was readily available, it would be collected. *Then* judgment would be rendered. Though I do admit, there are times when the authorities involved don't bother to collect further evidence. And some of those times have led to cases where the Death Row inmate was exonerated of the crime once someone bothered to present that further evidence. Which supports the concept that it's unwise to judge until *all* the evidence is presented. BTW, it is clear that justice in the WW doesn't work quite like real world justice, so you may just get your wish. Just as no one bothered to study all the evidence before hastily convicting Sirius and throwing him in Azkaban, and no one bothered to study all the evidence before tossing Hagrid out of Hogwarts, the same kind of snap judgment based on what *seems* to be obvious at first glance could happen with Snape. Though one can only hope the WW will some day realize that instant judgment based on first impressions is often a recipe for miscarriage of justice. Julie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 07:41:53 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 07:41:53 -0000 Subject: Good writer - Shallow and Deep In-Reply-To: <20051003192037.51493.qmail@web32607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mira wrote: > > --- lupinlore wrote: > > > I grant that JKR is not as good a writer as I once believed and > > hoped, ... > Why did you reach this conclusion, Lupinlore? I am > interested because, hard as I tried, I had exactly the > same impression all through HBP, but I would not be > able to put the finger on what was causing it. Can > you? > > Mira bboyminn: I've already posted a long comment on this thread, but there are a couple other issues I want to address. As I've previously said, JKR's writing is becoming very limited because the story has to draw to a predetermined conclusion, that doesn't allow her much flexibility as a writer. HBP is far from my favorite book, it was good, but it leaves me worried about the final book. Can she pull it off with the style and class of the other books? Let's compare stories - Goblet of Fire (my favorite) Quidditch World Cup Tri-Wizards Tournement (Dragons, underwater, maze; foreign students, etc...) Harry and Ron at odds with each other That's the on-going story. For the moment we'll ignore the climax. Half-Blood Prince Draco's up to something Harry has a book that someone has written in We take Pensieve 'trips' with Dumbedore and Harry Again, ignoring the climax, and concentrating on the on-going story. So, what I'm really saying is that other than the Pensieve 'trips' with Dumbledore, there really isn't much of a story at all. I certainly doesn't have the depth of plot that GoF or PoA have. But I accept it. Again, things had to be said and done, ground work had to be laid, the Horcruxes had to be introduced. So, in a sense, the demands of the overal story plot limited the plot of this one book. But what worries me is that JKR has indeed written herself into a figurative corner. How can the Percy side plot be resolved? How can the Horcrux side plot be resolved? She promised us an explanation for Sirius's death, how can she resolve that? How will the Neville subplot be resolved? So, what's up with Draco? What's up with Snape? And of course THE BIG ONE, how will the Harry/Voldemort plot be resolved? She has simply created too many crucial plot items that /I/ want and need resolved, and that must be resolved for plot reason. But there is only one book left, and if the book could span five years, then she might have a chance, but the book can only span ONE YEAR. Just the Horcrux search lone could take many years to resolve. So, my hope is that JKR can and will write a spectacular final book that will blow us all away, but my fear is that the last book will read more like a list, a list of items being resolved until the final BIG ITEM is resolved and we arrive at the epilog; item, item, item, item, BIG ITEM, epilog, end. I am satisfied with HBP, it moved the story forward and told us things we needed to know, but as a stand-alone book, I don't count it among the best books I've ever read. So; important as part of the series, but weak on its own. But, again, that weakness leaves me very worried about the final book. Gee... only two more year to wait! What fun! Steve/bboyminn From oppen at mycns.net Sat Oct 8 10:10:10 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:10:10 -0000 Subject: Percy the Prefect -Defender to the Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141302 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Steve" wrote: > > > From Percy's perspective it is not > > he who has turned on his family, > > but his family who has turned on him. > > Yes but no man is a villain in his own eyes. > > > He has made ever effort to live his life properly, > > I disagree, Percy happily took part in a proceeding that attempted to > destroy a boy and send him to Azkaban, a boy who had always been kind > to him and who saved his sister's life. I agree, this doesn't look good for Percy at all. That said, _how well does Percy actually know Harry Potter?_ If he's been hearing all sorts of stuff about "Harry Potter's crazy; Harry Potter, Dark- Lord-In-Waiting," and so on, he might have a very different view of Harry than those who know him better do. Percy tried to destroy the > friendship between Ron and Harry. Percy refused his mother's Christmas > present and didn't visit his father in the hospital when he was near > death or even ask about him, then he called Umbrage "delightful". I can't really excuse Percy's treatment of his parents---but I wonder, what would you expect would happen to me, if I had a daughter who came home delighted about a wonderful promotion she'd received at work, and my reaction was to ask her how many pairs of kneepads, and how many mattresses, she'd worn out getting it? And, again, we don't know what happened when Molly tried to visit Percy, since _we don't see it!_ Molly could well have tried to dominate him like he was a little kid, and (worse!) defended those pestilential Twins' treatment of him as "all in good fun," and Percy might just have Had E-Bloody- Nough. Until we have the whole story, I am withholding judgement on both Snape and Percy. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 10:54:36 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:54:36 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141303 > Carol wrote: > > Even if killing him [Dumbledore] was > > the only way to save Draco and Harry > > and get the Death Eaters out of the school? >eggplant replied: > if I had to decide between letting Draco die and murdering > Dumbledore it's a no brainer. Goodbye Draco. Valky now: Heavens eggplant! O_o Alright if that is your opinion, then it's your opinion. But how could Dumbledore share that with you? I mean, that could *never* be what Dumbledore will have wanted. DD is, what, 150 years old? or more? and Draco is a child, and a child who was a bees thingy from redemption to boot! Honestly, IMO, a Dumbledore that would allow Draco to die in his place, wouldn't be Dumbledore at all. So as it regards to Snape, giving Draco a second chance at life is neither here nor there for Snape, IMO. If he was DD's man then it would work, and if he wasn't, it still works. > Carol: > > If Snape had died (killed by the UV > > or the Death Eaters > eggplant: > Snape demonstrated that he was far more powerful than any of the > other Death Eaters who seemed quite terrified of him, Valky: Hmmm I don't 100% agree there. On the one hand, I have a stubborn feeling that Snape is incredibly skilled and dangerous, but on the other, I don't really read that in the Tower scene. It honestly looked to me as though Snapes Ace Card with the DE's was his rank with Voldemort. He influenced them mostly with reminders of the Dark Lord's orders, IIRC. eggplant: > I think Snape would > have had a good chance of killing them all especially as he had the > element of surprise on his side, but he never tried, he decided to > murder Dumbledore instead. Valky: I agree that he had the surprise element on his side, and he could choose for himself to use it to his advantage. But as for 'he never tried', we cannot establish that so easily. Currently there is discussion of how Snape would be tried as a person in a civilian court, but this doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. The WW is in a state of open warfare and Snape is a soldier. Hence he would never be tried in a civilians criminal court he would be tried in a military court of inquiry. Moreover, Snape is not first considered self-autonomous on the battlefield, he is a soldier, not a captain. Dumbledore *is* a captain, and on the field of battle such as this shouldn't the captain be tried along with his soldier. It needs to be established whether Snape was following orders first, right? Valky From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 12:03:20 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:03:20 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141304 > Carol: > > Even if killing him [Dumbledore] was > > the only way to save Draco and Harry > > and get the Death Eaters out of the school? > Eggplant: > Harry was safe, the Death Eaters didn't even know he was there, and if > I had to decide between letting Draco die and murdering Dumbledore > it's a no brainer. Goodbye Draco. Ceridwen: Harry was only safe as long as Dumbledore was alive. Once he fell from the tower and was dead, the spell released. There is no reason to believe that the spell would have remained to freeze Harry to the spot if Greyback tore Dumbledore apart, or Draco AK'd or otherwise disposed of him. And a free-moving Harry, angry at the death of Dumbledore, as we saw in Flight of the Prince, takes unnecessary risks without fear of dying. Facing Snape, who merely blocked his spells, was one thing. Snape even stopped one of the other DEs from Crucio'ing Harry. But, facing the DEs, Draco, and Greyback on the Tower, alone or with Snape as part of his opposition, would have seen Harry dead or horribly tortured and possibly incapacitated for book 7. Maybe he'd get a bed beside Lockhart if he lived through it? Maybe he'd be mangled like Bill. Maybe he'd be torn apart. But, Harry, facing at least four DEs and an untransformed werewolf alone? I don't think he could have pulled off a Rambo on this one. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 8 14:13:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:13:26 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141305 Eggplant: > Actually I think a nasty uncompassionate man with no empathy is the > very definition of evil, and I certainly don't understand why a person > with those tendencies would be loyal to Dumbledore and devote 16 years > of his life to defeating Voldemort. > Pippin: IMO, this confuses temperament with character. 'Temperament' refers to those psychological tendencies which are apparently biological in origin and can't be changed by an act of will. We all know some people are 'easy' -- they're sociable, adaptable, sunny, calm, patient, enduring, in short, they're Ron. Snape, OTOH, seems to have been constructed by turning all the temperamental dials as far towards 'difficult' as they will go. He's "unpredictable, withdrawing, non-adaptable to change, extremely negative and very intense." * People who are born that way soon exhaust their caregivers, who are apt to wonder what they've done to deserve such a difficult child. The child meanwhile learns that he cannot be himself without provoking others to anger, and not surprisingly he learns to experience the world as a very hostile place. It's a tough row to hoe. But none of that has anything to do with what Rowling considers goodness -- the moral courage to set self-gratification aside, whether what gratifies you is causing pain or feeling helpful, and do what is truly best for others. The virtue Snape exercised in saving Harry's life was not that he saved it -- as Alla rightly points out any responsible adult would have done that. But none of the responsible adults who were present ever noticed that Harry's broom was being hexed, because what they saw was either a reckless Gryffindor showoff or a hapless Muggle- raised firstie who couldn't control his broom. Hermione, of course, knew that Harry was neither of those things. But Snape didn't know, and yet he still thought to look beyond the easy and gratifying answer and search for a possible attacker instead of smirking, "I thought so" and sitting back to watch with a sneer on his face. If only he could have exercised as much virtue in the Shrieking Shack! But on the Quidditch pitch he could act anonymously -- at the Shrieking Shack he had a part to play. It's not surprising that Snape would learn to be good at occlumency and acting, considering that his sincere feelings would make him miserable company for anybody but a saint. I can well believe that Snape had true loyalty to Dumbledore, because Dumbledore is probably the only person Snape ever met who could accept Snape for what he was and see that there was goodness in him. I can also imagine that Voldemort pretended to be that person, and had Snape's loyalty until he made the mistake of letting Snape know that he was going after Lily and James on Snape's information. I can believe that no matter how horrible Snape believed himself to be, he clung to the knowledge that unlike those supposedly more virtuous folks, James and Sirius and Lupin, *he* was not a killer. After all, we know that young Snape knew at least two lethal curses, he was certainly clever and capable enough to get away with murder, he undoubtedly hated the Marauders with all his heart and hexed James every chance he got all through seventh year, ie *after* James supposedly tried to kill him. Yet it is never even hinted that any of that hexing was meant to kill James or even seriously injure him. I think understanding the difference between temperament and character is at the heart of it all -- it's why Lupin could be ESE and Snape could be loyal. Pippin * http://childparenting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/ XJ&sdn=childparenting&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elainegibson.net%2Fparenting% 2Fdifficult.html From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 8 14:33:27 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:33:27 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic - Imperius and AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141306 > > > > bboyminn: > >> > > I think it > > is the ability to draw on your own internal well of evil which then in > > turn 'fuels' the Killing Curse. The Darkness is in being able to draw > > that much evil intent/fuel from within yourself. It is this well of > > fuel that powers the spell and creates the /darkenss/, and not an > > outward intent to do harm. Elyse: I've been reading this interesting thread and while I've really got nothing illuminating to add, I have a couple of questions concerning intention in Unforgivable curses. According to bboyminn, the Avada Kedavra needs 'fuel' which is presumably an internal well of evil within yourself. Neri's hypothesis was that in order to produce a successful AK, you need the intention to hurt. I like both ideas and I remember a few excellent posts a while back postulating that what makes an AK work is the life force you use to overcome your victim's life force. So my question is, when anybody under Imperius is forced to commit murder, what happens? We have canon implications that an AK can be cast succesfully by someone who has been Imperiused and has no idea of what he/she is doing. Karkaroff says Mulciber specialised in the Imperius curse and "forced countless people to do horrific things". Sirius says " Avery wormed his way out of trouble by saying hed been acting under the Imperius curse" ; something Malfoy did as well. My point is, if you do need a certain degree of intention involved to cast an AK, if you really have to draw a large amount of fuel from the well of evil within, how come people under Imperius are able to do so? If it is the intention that counts, logically the AK should not work, as the caster has no control over his or her own will. It is not his will that his victim die, and the AK should malfunction. If it requires tapping into the well of evil, I dont see how this is feasible under Imperius conditions. If you could summon that amount of dark anger/hatred/willpower inside you , surely you can throw the Imperius off, right? And as for making an evil choice with a Dark Curse like AK, how can you do so when you are incapable of free will in the first place? In GoF, Krum is able to Crucio Diggory under Imperius. I doubt he chose to do i, and I dont think he had any grudge against Diggory for Krum to *want* to hurt him that much. I dont think he got any particular pleasure out of watching him suffer either. Yet Bella says that these are the particular reqirements for a Crucio to be successful. And as for Unforgivables requiring a powerful bit of magic, Krum could Crucio Diggory with apparent ease. Malfoy says Dark Arts are actually taught at Durmstrang. Does this mean that the students are taught to harness the evil within? Are they actively encouraged to choose evil and do they practise the intention to harm as homework? I think a definitive piece of canon is reqired to define Dark Magic and what the creation requires. Just me wondering here Elyse From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 8 14:50:32 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 07:50:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003801c5cc17$a2e4b9a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141307 > Carol wrote: > > Even if killing him [Dumbledore] was > > the only way to save Draco and Harry > > and get the Death Eaters out of the school? Sherry now: Well, here's the difference for me. First of all, i admit, I have a bias for life in all situations. LOTR spoilers coming. S P O I L E R S P A C E For me, my feelings can probably best be described by comparing Dumbledore's death to Gandalf's supposed death. In Fellowship of the Ring, the book, Gandalf gave his life defending the bridge against the Ballrog. None of the fellowship came over and shoved him off the bridge in order to save the rest of the gang. In fact, Aragorn and Boromir tried to come to aid him. If Dumbledore had made some kind of like sacrifice, that would be a completely different thing for me. I can't forgive or excuse Dumbledore dying at the hand of Snape. It was time for Snape to declare himself Dumbledore's Man, if he was, and help defend Dumbledore and the boys. Even getting a wand to Dumbledore could have been helpful. And I'm positive if Harry can do some wandless magic, Dumbledore surely must be able to do so. Snape chose to save his own skin, in my opinion. I'm becoming pretty sure of OFH Snape rather than strictly Voldemort's Snape. But the fact that he didn't try to fight to save Dumbledore doesn't make him DDM to me. Would LOTR be so incredible, if Aragorn had pushed Gandalf to his death, no matter what the reason? Aragorn wouldn't have been a very worthy king then. It's just the same with Snape killing Dumbledore. Dumbledore dying to save others is totally in character, but having that death happen at the hand of another person, especially someone he trusted with that life, is despicable. It does not make Snape much of a hero in my eyes and not someone I'd follow to the ends of the earth out of loyalty and respect. Sherry From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 8 15:27:50 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:27:50 -0000 Subject: The Trial Of Severus Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141308 Sherry wrote: If Dumbledore had made some kind of like sacrifice, that would be a completely different thing for me. I can't forgive or excuse Dumbledore dying at the hand of Snape. It was time for Snape to declare himself Dumbledore's Man, if he was, and help defend Dumbledore and the boys. Even getting a wand to Dumbledore could have been helpful. And I'm positive if Harry can do some wandless magic, Dumbledore surely must be able to do so. Snape chose to save his own skin, in my opinion. I'm becoming pretty sure of OFH Snape rather than strictly Voldemort's Snape. But the fact that he didn't try to fight to save Dumbledore doesn't make him DDM to me. Elyse: Again, I wish you would imagine the scenario if Snape tried to help DD in the Tower. You say that it was time for Snape to reveal that he was DD's man. If he had done so, continuing to pose as a spy for LV would have been rather more difficult dont you think? Ok lets say that Snape could have performed some other function instead of spying. How could he have done so when LV was out for his blood? Anything he could have done required venturing into society, and letting people know where he was. And as Fudge said in GoF, LV is no easy person to hide from. Sirius was an Animagus, yet he had to stay hidden in his prison of a house for a year. It drove him insane to do it. You think Snape would go down the same path after watching Sirius crack up? You think Dumbledore would have let him??? Karkaroff stayed alive for a year after he deserted. Regulus managed a few days. Snape had no chance of surviving. Of course assuming a DDM!Snape still willing to reveal himself as such, there is no guarantee that he could have fought 3 other DE's, and a werewolf alone (were not counting Draco here, he was just a pawn). As Valky said this was a wartime situation, and I think DD as Captain and Snape as lieutenant would have been able to calculate the odds better than a bystander like Harry who had no experience. Maybe they knew just how slim the odds were, how bad the situation really was. In such a case I can definitely believe that DD would have sacrificed himself. Thats why he is the epitome of moral goodness. Thats what made him the greatest wizard in the world. Also, there are so many theories that DD was dying from the curse on the ring, the potion in the cave and of course the really wild speculation that the AK was not an AK but really a nonverbal Impedimenta or something etc etc. I know all these arguments have been rehashed and replayed endlessly, but I felt compelled to repeat them, as I still am firmly entrenched in Dumbledore's Man!Snape territory. (Hmmm....maybe I ought to start giving out badges saying "Support SEVERUS SNAPE, the REAL Potterverse Hero".....heh heh :-) ) My point is if any, heck, maybe even ALL these arguments were true would you consider the mitigating factors? Would the explanations, no matter how far fetched, if proved true, soften your judgement? Or would you really condemn him to Azkaban no matter how heroic his actions were proven under harsh circumstances? Not trying to change your mind, just wondering about Sevvie's trial and how harshly the jury would come down if he survives book 7 Elyse From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 15:46:31 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:46:31 -0000 Subject: The Horcrux and the Dark Mark Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141309 vmonte: If it does turn out that the last horcrux is inside Harry I wonder if Harry could use it to his advantage? I believe that Voldemort is able to manipulate Harry (and Nagini without magic) because he has a piece of his soul inside of them. Couldn't Harry also use the horcrux inside of him to manipulate Nagini and the DEs? Couldn't Harry some how activate the Dark Marks on the DEs and send them to some sort of trap? Hermione got the idea of the DA coins from the Dark Mark. I wonder if it would be possible to create a spell or potion that could be used to attack all the DEs via contact with only one Dark Mark tattoo. You know, something that would work like a chain reaction--like a virus. Vivian In a weird mood. From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 15:47:02 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:47:02 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > IMO, this confuses temperament with character. 'Temperament' refers > to those psychological tendencies which are apparently biological in > origin and can't be changed by an act of will. We all know some > people are 'easy' -- they're sociable, adaptable, sunny, calm, > patient, enduring, in short, they're Ron. Snape, OTOH, seems to have > been constructed by turning all the temperamental dials as far > towards 'difficult' as they will go. He's "unpredictable, > withdrawing, non-adaptable to change, extremely negative and very > intense." Here is a shorter URL for the page you cited: http://www.elainegibson.net/parenting/difficult.html I think temperament has a lot to do with the staff and Order member reactions to Harry's news that Snape killed Dumbledore. His personality was such that they probably never felt they knew him, or knew what to think of him. His participation in communal events was probably only under duress and not enthusiastic. While participating, his input was probably negative and snide. The distance he maintained made it impossible for them to trust him. That distance may have had as much to do with temperament as with being a spy. lealess From heos at virgilio.it Sat Oct 8 15:56:14 2005 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:56:14 -0000 Subject: Snape? (HBP SPOILER) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141311 Hi everyone, and sorry about this message, I'm sure you've discussed the matter over and over again, but I've been out of touch for a while and have a lousy connection. If you know of a message already answering this, I'll be glad to read it. Ok, so my problem is (how can it not be?) whether Snape is bad or good. My theory (and everybody else's, I gather) is that he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. Possibly DD was already dying , weakened by the ring's curse, or simply by old age. And he thought it was more important for Snape to survive (otherwise, he would have broken the Unbreakable Vow) than himself, which means Snape has a great role to play now. But if so, DD was unwise not to tell Harry a better reason for trusting Snape, because now Harry wants to kill him. Also, nobody else knows this reason, apparently. And Snape must have hated DD for forcing him to kill him, the only person who ever believed he was worth something. All that shouting, Don't Call me a Coward in the end points in that direction. If a bad DE, why Snape would have stopped his flight to answer Harry? But there is a big hint against this, when DD says "I make mistakes, and being smartier than other, my mistakes are much bigger" So, what do you think out there? Snape is DD's mistake or not? See you chrusotoxos From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 8 16:30:13 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:30:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Trial Of Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004301c5cc25$902865b0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141312 My point is if any, heck, maybe even ALL these arguments were true would you consider the mitigating factors? Would the explanations, no matter how far fetched, if proved true, soften your judgement? Or would you really condemn him to Azkaban no matter how heroic his actions were proven under harsh circumstances? Not trying to change your mind, just wondering about Sevvie's trial and how harshly the jury would come down if he survives book 7 Elyse Sherry now: No, it would not change my mind. Snape's usefulness as a spy is gone now anyway because he murdered Dumbledore. If I had to put a value on any life, even Snape's which I am morally against making one life more valuable than another, but to me, if one or the other is more important to the war effort and to Harry, it is Dumbledore and not Snape. Snape was a coward not to declare himself, if he was DDM, and letting Dumbledore die, and actively helping the process along is reprehensible. His service in the war is not worth the price of losing Dumbledore. A soldier goes to prison for killing his general, no matter how noble he thinks his motives may be for that action. If Snape did indeed kill Dumbledore--not some elaborate hoax and DD still alive--then no matter what the mitigating circumstances, he deserves prison. Only self defense could change my mind, and DD wasn't about to kill Snape. So, sorry, no. If Snape killed Dumbledore, nothing will make that right to me. I don't want Sevvy to be the hero of the books in the end. it's Harry's story, and i want him to be victorious, not diluted by the great Severus Snape, the murderer. Sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 8 16:37:33 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:37:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Trial Of Severus Snape In-Reply-To: <004301c5cc25$902865b0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <004401c5cc26$95fa4e80$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141313 My point is if any, heck, maybe even ALL these arguments were true would you consider the mitigating factors? Would the explanations, no matter how far fetched, if proved true, soften your judgement? Or would you really condemn him to Azkaban no matter how heroic his actions were proven under harsh circumstances? Elyse sherry again: i meant to respond to this particular part of your post: You asked if I would condemn him to Azkaban, no matter how heroic his actions are proven to be. I'm sorry. There is nothing, in my opinion only of course, absolutely nothing, *heroic* about killing a helpless old man and saving your own skin in the process. Sorry Sevvy, no explanation can make you a hero for that one. Sherry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 17:16:29 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:16:29 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141314 "M.Clifford" wrote: Me: >> if I had to decide between >> letting Draco die and murdering >> Dumbledore it's a no brainer. >> Goodbye Draco. >Valky > Heavens eggplant! Alright if that is your > opinion, then it's your opinion. But how > could Dumbledore share that with you? I have never seen any evidence that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him nor have I read any credible reason why he would wish such a thing. > DD is, what, 150 years old? or more? and > Draco is a child, and a child who was a > bees thingy from redemption to boot! Draco may be a child but he is also a poor excuse for a human being, Dumbledore on the other hand is the greatest wizard of the age; and you need to do a lot more than not murder someone to get redemption after all the things Draco has done. > IMO, a Dumbledore that would allow Draco > to die in his place, wouldn't be Dumbledore > at all. And besides, I don't understand how Dumbledore's death makes Draco one bit safer. Me: >> Snape demonstrated that he was >> far more powerful than any of >> the other Death Eaters who >>seemed quite terrified of him Valky: > Hmmm I don't 100% agree there. On the one > hand, I have a stubborn feeling that Snape > is incredibly skilled and dangerous, but > on the other, I don't really read that > in the Tower scene. It honestly looked to > me as though Snapes Ace Card with the DE's > was his rank with Voldemort. You will notice that Harry had very little difficulty dealing with the other Death Eaters that fateful night in the tower, Harry defeated one after the other and hardly broke a sweat; Snape however was a very different matter. I believe Snape is more intelligent than any of his contemporaries and is an extraordinarily powerful wizard, only Dumbledore and Voldemort were stronger and Snape had just killed one and he was protecting Harry because he knew he was the only one who could kill the other. > I agree that he had the surprise element on his > side, and he could choose for himself to use it > to his advantage. But as for 'he never > tried', we cannot establish that so easily. Snape never attacked the Death Eaters, he could have killed them and then told Voldemort that Dumbledore had done it, he could have said the raid failed because Draco had not told him about it in advance and he was on the other side of the castle when it happened, that last part has the advantage of being true. Snape could have said that Draco was dead too and then as Dumbledore suggested Draco could change his name and enter the witness protection program. Instead of doing or even trying to do any of that Snape decided he'd rather murder Dumbledore. Eggplant From oppen at mycns.net Sat Oct 8 17:24:39 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:24:39 -0000 Subject: Percy's Letter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141315 One thing I'd be curious to know is just _what_ Percy was supposed to say to Ron in his letter..._given that Umbridge, or someone loyal to/reporting to her, was almost certainly going to have a chance to look the letter over before Ron ever saw it!_ Under those circumstances, writing "Oh, I say, Ron, be careful of Dolores Umbridge; she's out to do down Dumbledore and discredit Harry Potter because my boss, who gave me a wonderful second chance when I was very vulnerable over the Barty Crouch Incident, doesn't want to believe You-Know-Who is back" would not be the smartest idea in the world. Ron, unfortunately, is Thick As An Asphalt Sandwich, and took the letter at face value. I wonder what would have happened if Hermione had had the opportunity to read it? She's a lot shrewder than Ron (which is not showering her with praise; I've met chunks of cheese with better Cunning Plans than Ron comes up with). --Eric who, despite appearances, honestly doesn't dislike Ron and doesn't understand why some people in the fandom seem to despise him. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 8 17:24:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:24:52 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <003801c5cc17$a2e4b9a0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141316 > Sherry now: > > Well, here's the difference for me. First of all, i admit, I have a bias > for life in all situations. > > LOTR spoilers coming. > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > S > P > A > C > E > > > For me, my feelings can probably best be described by comparing Dumbledore's > death to Gandalf's supposed death. In Fellowship of the Ring, the book, > Gandalf gave his life defending the bridge against the Ballrog. None of the > fellowship came over and shoved him off the bridge in order to save the rest > of the gang. In fact, Aragorn and Boromir tried to come to aid him. > Pippin: The question is not whether Aragorn and Boromir would have aided Gandalf if they could, or shoved him off the bridge for no reason, but whether they would have blown up the bridge themselves, with Gandalf on it, to save Frodo. There's no question that they would, or at least, we know what Boromir's and Faramir's men did to Boromir and Faramir themselves in order to defend Gondor: "I was in the company that held the bridge *until it was cast down behind us.* Four only were saved by swimming; my brother and myself and two others" (LOTR:The Council of Elrond, emphasis mine) What Snape and Dumbledore faced on the tower was a classic triage situation. There were three innocents in jeopardy from the Death Eaters: Harry, who would probably escape without help, Dumbledore who might well be beyond mortal aid and Draco, who might escape with timely intervention but probably not without it. We don't know whether Snape could be sure that Dumbledore was beyond help, we don't know whether Snape killed Dumbledore or only pretended to... but there probably wasn't any solution that would save both Dumbledore and Draco. In those situations in real life, if, say, there was only one operating room, or time to pull only one person from the burning car, the child's life would get priority. Pippin From muellem at bc.edu Sat Oct 8 18:29:42 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:29:42 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Snape never attacked the Death Eaters, he could have killed them and > then told Voldemort that Dumbledore had done it, he could have said > the raid failed because Draco had not told him about it in advance and > he was on the other side of the castle when it happened, that last > part has the advantage of being true. Snape could have said that Draco > was dead too and then as Dumbledore suggested Draco could change his > name and enter the witness protection program. > > Instead of doing or even trying to do any of that Snape decided he'd > rather murder Dumbledore. > > Eggplant you are forgetting a little thing called the Unbreakable Vow that Snape took. He would have died before being able to do a darn thing to the Death Eaters - Draco had failed; Draco wasn't going to kill Dumbledore. The UV would have kicked in. If Snape turned his back and started to kill DE's instead of *killing* Dumbledore, Snape would have probably dropped dead in his tracks. And then what? You've read enough posts on this board to know the rest of the story - Snape dead, Harry can't move, DE's still in the tower. DE's would kill Dumbledore, who was weak & probably one or two minutes from death anyway. Harry would be released - Harry, who didn't *defeat* any DE's - he didn't kill any, he just deflected their hexs & curses - would have, in a blind rage - just like the rage we saw him go after Snape - tried to take on the DE's up in the tower with a werewolf. What are the odds there? No Snape to protect Harry (yes! Snape protected Harry - he wouldn't let the other DE's curse Harry). So, tally it up - DD dead, Snape dead, Harry dead. End of story. Regardless if you believe that Snape is working for the Order still, is working for Voldemort, or just out of himself, how could you not see what would happen on the tower if Snape hadn't done what he did? Hard choices in War. Nothing is easy. Things aren't black & white in War - how does that saying go: All's fair in love & war... Dumbledore would not have wanted Draco dead - regardless if one thinks that Draco is a twit and deserves to die, DD doesn't want that. DD is a wise wizard who probably knows more about the situation up on the tower better than Harry. Yes, DD has made mistakes, but to have a colossial mistake in judgement, over 16 years, with Snape is more than a mistake - it makes DD a foolish, unwise wizard. Most of DD's mistakes have not been that huge, IMHO. He could not control Sirius from going to MoM - was that a mistake? He could not control the feelings between Harry & Snape - was that a mistake? I don't think they are - you are dealing with humans here - flawed, imperfect, in all their glory & warts, so to speak. colebiancardi (who wonders if Snape ever went to trial in *real-life*, who would believe the word of a distressed and emotional 17 year old, when presented with the odds? I hope in book 7, some logical and even-tempered wizard yanks the memories out of Harry's head and reviews them in the Pensive - which are objective, according to Rowling....) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 18:47:28 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:47:28 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic - Imperius & Well of Darkness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141318 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" wrote: > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > >> > > > I think it is the ability to draw on your own internal well of > > > evil which then in turn 'fuels' the Killing Curse. The Darkness > > > is in being able to draw that much evil intent/fuel from within > > > yourself. It is this well of fuel that powers the spell and > > > creates the /darkenss/, and not an outward intent to do harm. > Elyse: > > ...edited... > > So my question is, when anybody under Imperius is forced to commit > murder, what happens? We have canon implications that an AK can be > cast succesfully by someone who has been Imperiused and has no idea > of what he/she is doing. > > Karkaroff says Mulciber specialised in the Imperius curse > and "forced countless people to do horrific things". > Sirius says " Avery wormed his way out of trouble by saying hed been > acting under the Imperius curse" ; something Malfoy did as well. > My point is, if you do need a certain degree of intention involved > to cast an AK, if you really have to draw a large amount of fuel > from the well of evil within, how come people under Imperius are > able to do so? > > If it is the intention that counts, logically the AK should not > work, as the caster has no control over his or her own will. > ...edited... > bboyminn: Well, first, my intent in the post I made was to see if I could may my original hypothesis fit with Neri's 'Intention' hypothesis which I see as flawed. So, I tried to switch the idea from an outward projection of intent, to drawing on an inner well of 'intent'. My use of the term 'well of evil' was somewhat metaphorical. I'm sure I used 'well of...' with other terms too. Regarding the Imperius Curse, as an illustration, I would like you to think back to our best example of this, when fake!Moody put the curse on Harry and we got to see it from Harry's perspective. It was very much like being drugged; state of euphoria, lack of inhibitions, etc.... Next, we all have a Well of Darkness within us. We all have the capability to think of and commit dark, dangerous, and deadly acts ...but we don't. So why don't we? Well, we have a internal mechanism that stops us; call it inhabitions, conscience, common sense, or whatever. The inhibition acts as a barrier between us and the Well of Darkness that is in us all. We all have murderous impulses, but we are able to resist them. A sociopath, has those same impulses, but has no inhibiting mechanism to put things in perspective, so he/she doesn't realize that he/she shouldn't act on them. Now the Imperius curse short circuits this inhibiting mechanism, and in a state of extremely relaxed euphoria, we are unable to resist the impulse that is forced on us, and we are unable to maintain that barrier between our conscious selves and the Well of Darkness within. When this intoxicating effect of the Curse is taken into consideration, I think it is probably /easier/ to commit Dark and deadly acts. So, that explains how a person is able to dip into that well of intenal murderous intent. To project that intent outwardly, I think can also be explained. With no inhibitions and with the surrendering of your own free will, I think other people can project their murderous intent through you. In a sense, the Imperiused person becomes an instrument for the actions and intent of another. Again, to some extent, it comes back to inhibitions; without them, you are unable to resist any impulse that is forced on you. > Elyse: > > ... Malfoy says Dark Arts are actually taught at Durmstrang. Does > this mean that the students are taught to harness the evil within? > Are they actively encouraged to choose evil and do they practise the > intention to harm as homework? I think a definitive piece of canon > is reqired to define Dark Magic and what the creation requires. > > Just me wondering here > Elyse bboyminn: Keep in mind that my original response to Neri wasn't all inclusive. It was an attempt to bring together her idea of 'intention' and my idea of 'destructive in its creation'. I switch the projection of external intent into drawing on an internal well of 'intent' which I also feel is destructive, so that with slight adjustments, Neri's idea would fit into my original hypothesis. So, while I'm including the 'well of evil' as part of my theory, I'm not limiting it to that. I also propose that this 'destructive in its creation' element include drawing on the life force of other living things (plant, animal, human) and using 'other' things to which the dark wizard has no right (such as blood-flesh-bone). The nature of the destruction can be physical destruction to some aspect of the world, or spiritual destruction of the dark wizard, and also, using worldly elements to which a dark wizard has no right, plus other destructive 'things'. So, I can't answer your question in the limited context of internal/external intent. I believe if we expand that back to my original idea of 'destructive creation', then we can explain a full range of magic that can be taught at Drumstrang, and that in one way or another is destructive in the creation of the magic. If a few plants or animals have to die to perform a dark spell, is a dark wizard really going to care when he is probably going to have steak and potatoes for dinner anyway? Yet, while 'light' wizards may eat steak and potatoes, they do not accept as their right the concept of stealing the life force of other living things simply to perform certain spells that an be performed by alternate means; by using nondestructive 'light' magic. So, again, in the context of 'Well of Darkness' or external projection of intent, I can't give a satisfactory answer to your question on Dark Magic. But, if we go back to my original idea of 'dark by destructive creation', then I think we have a reasonable explanation. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From maliksthong at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 18:47:31 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:47:31 -0000 Subject: Snape? (HBP SPOILER)/Why Harry SHOULD hate Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141319 "chrusotoxos" wrote: But if > so, DD was unwise not to tell Harry a better reason for trusting > Snape, because now Harry wants to kill him. Also, nobody else > knows this reason, apparently. > And Snape must have hated DD for forcing him to kill him, the > only person who ever believed he was worth something. All that > shouting, Don't Call me a Coward in the end points in that > direction. If a bad DE, why Snape would have stopped his flight > to answer Harry? > But there is a big hint against this, when DD says "I make > mistakes, and being smartier than other, my mistakes are much > bigger" > > So, what do you think out there? Snape is DD's mistake or not? > > See you > chrusotoxos > Chys: This has been talked about before. You know, if Harry trusts Snape STILL and LV somehow finds out about it, maybe through their connection or an eavesdropper, if Snape IS a good guy, then Harry will have given him away in his trust. It's better for Harry to hate Snape and try to kill him rather than him to hold back in a battle or to not show his resentment, so it's safer if Snape IS a good guy, to be hated by all of the other good guys. Maybe there's One special person who knows the truth, but it's safer it's not Harry. They'll have an insider still (in Snape) and LV will have his confidence with Snape's unwavering loyalty. At least, that's a theory for the Good guy Snape, DD'sMan!Snape followers to consider. I think he's out for himself anyway. Chys From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 19:03:21 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:03:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Adaptability was re: Harry IS Snape. Message-ID: <700201d40510081203r51ae442cr36bd87830bc48080@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141320 On 10/8/05, pippin_999 wrote: > > Eggplant: > > Actually I think a nasty uncompassionate man with no empathy is the > > very definition of evil, and I certainly don't understand why a person > > with those tendencies would be loyal to Dumbledore and devote 16 years > > of his life to defeating Voldemort. > > > > Pippin: > IMO, this confuses temperament with character. 'Temperament' refers to > those psychological tendencies which are apparently biological in > origin and can't be changed by an act of will. We all know some people > are 'easy' -- they're sociable, adaptable, sunny, calm, patient, enduring, > in short, they're Ron. Snape, OTOH, seems to have been constructed by > turning all the temperamental dials as far towards 'difficult' as they > will > go. He's "unpredictable, withdrawing, non-adaptable to change, extremely > negative and very intense." ...snip... Kemper: I agreed with most of the Pippin's snipped post except the "non-adaptable to change" part. I think as a spy Snape is one of the most adaptable to change. And seems as adaptable if not more so than Harry. Ron, however, doesn't seem too adaptable to change. He's resistant to it. IIRC, he's a bit anxious and once panic stricken going through the various guards of the Stone except for Wizarding Chess, but it is also something very familiar to him. He's anxious going to talk with Aragog and rightfully so. He's resistant to believe Scabbers isn't what he appears and resistant accept the suspicious circumstances of his best friend becoming a Champion until after the 1st task. He anxious as Keeper in front of anyone. Perhaps there are more examples, but that's what I got. I'm not saying that Ron is a coward. He shows courage in every book. But... it seems he fights to keep his comfort zone. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Sat Oct 8 19:46:51 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:46:51 -0000 Subject: Adaptability was re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <700201d40510081203r51ae442cr36bd87830bc48080@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > Kemper: > I agreed with most of the Pippin's snipped post except the "non-adaptable to > change" part. I think as a spy Snape is one of the most adaptable to change. > And seems as adaptable if not more so than Harry. Ron, however, doesn't seem > too adaptable to change. He's resistant to it. > IIRC, he's a bit anxious and once panic stricken going through the various > guards of the Stone except for Wizarding Chess, but it is also something > very familiar to him. He's anxious going to talk with Aragog and rightfully > so. He's resistant to believe Scabbers isn't what he appears and resistant > accept the suspicious circumstances of his best friend becoming a Champion > until after the 1st task. He anxious as Keeper in front of anyone. Perhaps > there are more examples, but that's what I got. > I'm not saying that Ron is a coward. He shows courage in every book. But... > it seems he fights to keep his comfort zone. > Kemper > I agree on the Snape analysis, as well. However, I disagree with Ron's . I think Ron is very adaptable - he just is mre imaginative than most folks his age. He *fears* things that are unknown, but that does not, as you pointed out, stop him from being courageous. In fact, Ron overcomes his fear, time & time again, more than most in the PotterWorld. Who doesn't want their comfort zone? All of us do - what Ron is faced with is more than keeping his comfort zone - it is looking at what fears him most and dealing with it, facing the facts and doing the right thing. colebiancardi (who absolutely loves Ron and is glad he got together with Hermoine) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 19:52:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:52:41 -0000 Subject: Lucius and Stan in Prison In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > Of on a new subject which I Lucuis and other DE's in prison. > > According to the Daily Prophet - " ...the Death Eaters now serving > > sentences in Azkaban for **trespass and attempted theft**..." (pg > > 39). It is vitally important to note that Lucius and his fellow > > DE's were NOT charged with attempted murder or any other > > substantial crimes.... > > > > ...I have no doubt that Lucius will be out of prison very soon. > > Do you think he'll get out before or after Stan Shunpike? > > Amiable Dorsai > bboyminn: Not really important but I was looking through old posts and found the question. Yes, sadly, I do think Lucius will get out before Stan Shunpike. Stan is a political prisoner. I don't even recall him getting a trial. So, I expect him to be in prison indefinitely. Whereas Lucius was tried and sentenced for a specific, although admittedly mild compared to what he actually did, crime. Therefore I suspect he will be out after a fixed period of time. When Voldemort called Lucius 'my slippery friend', he wasn't kidding. To think that Lucius could carry on as he did in the Ministry and only get sentenced for "trespass and attempted theft" with no mention of him being a Death Eater is unimaginable, but it none the less appears to have happened. I don't think Harry will be very happy when he it finally dawns on him. Although, I really hope that Harry will make some effort to get Stan freed. Not exactly sure how, but perhaps Harry will arrange a little 'give and take' with the Ministry; give me Stan, and I'll pretent to be a good boy. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 20:24:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:24:08 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic - Imperius and AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141323 Elyse wrote: > So my question is, when anybody under Imperius is forced to commit murder, what happens? We have canon implications that an AK can be cast succesfully by someone who has been Imperiused and has no idea of what he/she is doing. > My point is, if you do need a certain degree of intention involved to cast an AK, if you really have to draw a large amount of fuel from the well of evil within, how come people under Imperius are able to do so? > > If it is the intention that counts, logically the AK should not work, as the caster has no control over his or her own will. It is not his will that his victim die, and the AK should malfunction. If it requires tapping into the well of evil, I dont see how this is feasible under Imperius conditions. If you could summon that amount of dark anger/hatred/willpower inside you, surely you can throw the Imperius off, right? And as for making an evil choice with a Dark Curse like AK, how can you do so when you are incapable of free will in the first place? Carol responds: Excellent questions. (I sincerely hope the answer isn't that JKR hasn't thought things out!) Here's a possibility, which I think would work whether AK and Crucio depend on the intention to kill/torture or the "evil within": Since the victim of an Imperius Curse has lost his free will and is acting as the tool of another wizard, he requires neither the intent(ion) to cast the spell nor the ability to cast it (normally acquired through concentration and practice). It's the intention/desire/"well of evil" within the wizard who cast the Imperius and is controlling the victim that enables the victim to cast the spell. IOW, Mulciber was making murderers out of other people by transferring his (wholly evil) will to them. In the same way, Crouch!Moody caused a decent, quiet (if surly) boy named Viktor Krum to Crucio another boy (Cedric Diggory) whom he did not hate and may have liked. In this case, the will to do evil was Crouch!Moody's, not Viktor Krum's. Without Crouch!Moody's will manipulating and empowering him, Viktor would have been unable to cast the spell, as well as having no intention of doing so.(Viktor's actions afterwards make it clear that he did not want to cast the Crucio and was ashamed of having done it.) Which brings up the problem of the Dark Arts actually being taught at Durmstrang, for which we have only the word of Draco in CoS (IIRC), and even he doesn't state that the Unforgiveables are taught. (JKR doesn't introduce them until GoF.) Viktor's mortification, his apparent feeling at the end of GoF that he doesn't deserve to be in Hogwarts (and Dumbledore's kindly remark that *everyone* present is welcome to return at any time, surely directed at poor Viktor) indicate to me that Viktor has never done anything of the sort before. Surely even Karkaroff would not have taught his own students to kill and Crucio each other, and from what we've seen Imperius is just as dangerous. Maybe, like Barty Jr., they used spiders or other small creatures to practice the Unforgiveable Curses on. Or maybe they were taught the Dark Arts in general (whatever the Dark Arts really are), but not the Unforgiveable Curses, which would be just as Unforgiveable in Eastern or Northern Europe as in Britain. Or maybe Draco is full of hot air. One more small point before I forget: an Imperius Curse can't be cast off with "dark anger" or hatred. Imperius makes the victim feel euphoric. His own worries and concerns disappear. He is not even really himself; he's out of touch with reality. (The closest thing to the sensation of being under an Imperius Curse is being under the spell of the Veela.) Resisting the curse requires an awareness (like Harry's when Crouch!Moody Imperios him in DADA class) that someone else's will is trying to make you do something stupid or dangerous or evil and the ability to impose your own will in place of the other person's. This talent appears to be extremely rare. I have no doubt that Dumbledore had it. Probably Voldemort does, too, and perhaps the ability to resist the Imperius Curse is one of the powers that Harry received from Voldemort (along with Parseltongue and possibly possession) when the AK backfired. The Crouches (very powerful wizards) had only limited powers of resistance, and both of them were experts on the curse's effects. Most wizards (even Snape?) would probably be as defenseless against it as Ron and Neville in Crouch!Moody's DADA class. Another teeny observation: I do think the person under the Imperius curse would need to have the *power* to cast an Unforgiveable Curse (as opposed to the will to cast it or a "well of evil" with them). IOW, the nine-year-old boy who tried to kill his grandparents would not have succeeded despite the evil will of the DE who Imperioed him. (I could be wrong on this point. It's possible that the power required to cast an AK or Crucio is transferred along with the will, but if that were the case, I think Mulciber would not have been so eager to Imperio a large number of people in VW1. Chances are that the people he Imperioed were fully qualified wizards with sufficient power of their own to cast an Unforgiveable Curse; he would not have wanted to deplete his own powers. As for the will to do evil, I'm pretty sure he had an unlimited supply.) Carol, who agrees with Elyse that we *really* need to know what is meant by "Dark Arts" and by "Unforgiveable" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 8 21:29:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:29:08 -0000 Subject: The Trial Of Severus Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141324 Elyse: > Again, I wish you would imagine the scenario if Snape tried to help DD in the Tower. You say that it was time for Snape to reveal that he was DD's man. If he had done so, continuing to pose as a spy for LV would have been rather more difficult dont you think? > Of course assuming a DDM!Snape still willing to reveal himself as > such, there is no guarantee that he could have fought 3 other DE's, and a werewolf alone (were not counting Draco here, he was just a pawn). Carol responds: Not to mention that the moment Snape attempted to help Dumbledore, he would almost certainly have been killed by the Unbreakable Vow, which he would have *broken* by helping Dumbledore rather than "doing the deed" for Draco as the UV required him to do. By the same token, it's most unlikely that Snape, however powerful, could have fought four DEs. The moment he stupefied the first one, he'd have dropped dead from the UV. There's more at stake than revealing his loyalties. The UV is a life-or-death matter. So what I'm asking Sherry to imagine is the situation on the tower with a helpless and wandless Dumbledore, a dead Snape, four DEs (one of them a werewolf looking forward to eating Dumbledore), a Draco who's failed in his duty to Voldemort, and a frozen Harry: IOW, what would have happened if Snape had broken his vow and died as a consequence. And, Sherry, I snipped your post, but you seem to have missed my point. (The situation isn't comparable to Gandalf fighting the Balrog; Gandalf, though tired, was still in possession of most of his powers, and he still had his staff. Dumbledore is exhausted, weak, ill, wandless, and for the sake of argument in this post, would have died no matter what.) I'm asking you to assume (just for the sake of discussion, not as "fact") that Snape could *not* have saved DD (who would have been murdered by the DEs if he didn't die from the potion) but *could* save both Draco and Harry by getting the DEs off the tower before the freezing spell on Harry ended. (Harry would have gone rushing out to fight four DEs, not counting Draco, one of them a savage werewolf bent on ravaging Dumbledore's body if he had been killed by a regular AK from a DE rather than being sent over the battlements of the tower.) So let me ask you again: If Snape had the choice of 1) dying from the broken UV and accomplishing nothing except endangering everyone else, with Dumbledore and Draco killed by the DEs, Harry in grave danger, and the DEs running all over Hogwarts OR 2) killing the unsaveable Dumbledore, saving Draco and Harry, and getting the DEs out of Hogwarts, wouldn't "2" be the better choice, or at least an understandable choice? I'm only posing this question as a "what if," not arguing that this interpretation is the correct one. *If* Dumbledore could not be saved, and *if* the only way Snape could save Harry (and Draco) and get the DEs out of Hogwarts was to kill Dumbledore, did Snape really have a choice? And *if* he made the only possible choice, making himself a murderer to give Harry a chance of destroying Voldemort, doesn't he deserve forgiveness? Carol From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 01:26:55 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:26:55 -0000 Subject: We have a department for that Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141325 I just had a thought, since it seems Book 7 will be at least in part a quest for lost Horcruxes, that it really wouldn't do for "The Chosen One" to run around asking suspicious questions and looking for very specific objects. It's bound to raise eyebrows in the Wizarding community, not to mention in the DE circle. Even Voldemort wouldn't need more than ten seconds to figure out what's Harry is looking for. It thus appears that we are in desperate need of a convincing cover for a Horcrux hunt. How convenient it is, then, that a new office was recently established in the Ministry of Magic. This one is called the Office for the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects. Sounds like just the thing, isn't it? This office, while conveniently a side one and far from the center of attention, employs no less than ten workers, who spend long hours (frequently until after midnight) searching and confiscating cursed Sneakoscops, fake potions, Metamorph-medals and that sort of knick-knack. They were even known to raid a DE's house merely on the ground of some undisclosed "confidential tip-off". It probably wouldn't raise a single eyebrow if they were after some magic lockets or cups. How lucky, then, that Harry is in very good terms with the head of this office (who is, in case you haven't caught up yet, one Arthur Weasley). I wonder if 17 years old wizards can get a temporary job in the Ministry while school is closed down for the war? Neri From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 9 02:32:37 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:32:37 -0000 Subject: Lucius and Stan in Prison In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141326 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" > wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > ...I have no doubt that Lucius will be out of prison very soon. > > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Do you think he'll get out before or after Stan Shunpike? > > > bboyminn: > Yes, sadly, I do think Lucius will get out before Stan Shunpike. > Stais a political prisoner. .... Lucius was tried > and sentenced for a specific, although admittedly mild compared to > what he actually did, crime. Therefore I suspect he will be out > after a fixed period of time. > > Although, I really hope that Harry will make some effort to get Stan > freed. Not exactly sure how, but perhaps Harry will arrange a little > 'give and take' with the Ministry; give me Stan, and I'll pretent to > be a good boy. > Valky: Hey, good one Steve, :D there is one of those 'other' Hero story traditions, at last. But doesn't it usually go that when the hero strikes up this deal with the leader of the "good" guys, that he keeps his end of it, and they never keep theirs. Since Harry has already told Scrimgeour to release Stan, this is really probable to happen in Book seven IMO. I'd like to plot a hypothetical for it, if noone minds: Let's say Scrimgeour looks to be giving in, and he approaches Harry saying. Here's the thing Harry, you clean up some such for us, lets say he goes with Harry's reputation for mastering the Patronus at 13 and asks him to clean up the Dementors that are really stinking up the place with breeding mist, and in return, says Scrimgeour, we'll release Stan Shunpike. So Harry says, yeah alright, I'll figure something out, and he does, with the help of his clever and brave friends, figure out how to clean the WW of Dementors or some other Gargantuan feat. Then Scrimgeour, hardly expecting Harry to do so well so quickly, says, no I can't release Stan for you, you haven't helped the ministry because you didn't do what I expected you to do. Harry gets pretty mad here, but Scrimgeour says, hey Umbridge has told me you are friends with a Giant in the Forbidden Forest, how about you give us a hand with the Giants and then I'll release Stan, thinking hehe that will keep him busy enough, but Harry is back the next day demanding payment again. Stan still can't go free, Scrimgeour has one more trick up his sleeve, he says, I heard that you (Harry) have some werewolf friends, don't suppose you could fix that problem for us too? And Harry mad as hell now says, okay Mate, but if you don't let Stan go after this, It'll be *you* I clean up next. So somehow with the help of Lupin and Bill etc, Harry settles the whole werewolf population and saves the WW from the uprising. A week later he's back knocking at Scrimgeours office asking for Stan, and Scrimgeour, as good as can be expected says, well you know Stan was locked up for being a Death Eater, and they are still at large, can't really let him out Harry, you understand, right? And Harry, as good as *his* word replies, okay Scrimmy, you asked for it. At least half the ministry and the Wizengamot are on Harry's side now after all he's done for the WW, so with the littlest of effort Harry ransacks Scrimmys office, and takes at his liberty, payment for the Dementors - Stan is freed, payment for the Giants - Lucius is kicked out of the ministry once and for all, and payment for the werewolves - Arthur gets the big chair perhaps? That was fun but... Too much poetic license? Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 9 04:34:43 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:34:43 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141327 eggplnt: > I have never seen any evidence that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill > him nor have I read any credible reason why he would wish such a > thing. Valky: Well to be honest, I am not absolutely convinced of it either. But I am neither convinced by the facts in evidence that Snape even killed Dumbledore, of all the things that Dumbledore could have died from in HBP, the ring curse, the potion, Snape's weird looking AK, and a fall from a high tower, it is the last two that seem the *least* likely to have killed someone of Dumbledores calibre as a wizard. I can see how they appear to compound on Dumbledore until he is weak enough to die from the final blow, sort of. I mean, yeah I can agree he's weakened, but I disgree that in that weakened state he couldn't choose to fight for his survival if he really deemed it the best thing. Think of the examples we have: of Dumbledore alone under the terible curse from the ring that nearly killed him, he fought it, he was a fraction of an inch from death but he fought it, and survived. Then there is the potion and the Inferi, again Dumbledore was nigh paralysed by the effects of the potion, probably a sliver from death again, and up he gets fighting, even taking the time to compliment Voldemort on his design. All this time he is applying his will power and fighting death with one more thing to do. When he gets to the tower, again he's hauling himself up the wall, minding his manners, and trying to save Draco Malfoy from mutilating his soul, he's got plenty of willpower left. But he's thrown away his wand. Seriously, Harry's OWL examiner tells him Dumbledore could to the most amazing things with a wand, and in OOtP we see it. And there on the tower all we see is Dumbledore giving his wand up. Why? Why does Dumbledore stop fighting for *his* life? How can we give Snape all the credit for Dumbledore's death when Dumbledore has *in plain view* _given_ it to him on a silver platter? If Dumbledore wanted to fight back he had the ability left in him. He even tells Draco he knew that the Tower was a trap, and yet, he walks into it, and never tries to get out again. Finally Dumbledore *does* know there is an Unbreakable Vow, he does know that Snape faces death if Draco dies, Harry told him about it after Christmas, and Dumbledore answered to Harry that the Unbreakable Vow was *not* news to him, and it was *not* important. I admit JKR did an immaculate job of presenting us a long list of Snapes motivations throughout the story, but I submit that we are also given reason to dismiss every last one of them, especially in Dumbledore's choices of actions leading up to his death. This might not exactly be evidence that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him. But it suggests that Dumbledore wasn't planning to live through the night, and therefore whatever Snape has to do with his death is... incedental? eggplant: > > DD is, what, 150 years old? or more? and > > Draco is a child, and a child who was a > > bees thingy from redemption to boot! > > Draco may be a child but he is also a poor excuse for a human being, > Dumbledore on the other hand is the greatest wizard of the age; and > you need to do a lot more than not murder someone to get redemption > after all the things Draco has done. Valky: Oh I agree there was a whole lot Draco needed to do next, but my point there is that Draco was a hairs breadth from his first step to doing it and I can't imagine Dumbledore forsaking that, the hope of a young soul, to save his hide, even if he could (and I think he could have). Dumbledore believes in making the right choice over the easy one, and this would be a case of that right choice. Sure, it's a huge sacrifice, but Dumbledore judging himself more important than Draco soul and sentencing Draco to death for his crimes would be so wrong, it would be self-righteous and self aggrandizing to a nauseating degree, it, in short, would be something Voldemort would do. Not Dumbledore. > eggplant: > > IMO, a Dumbledore that would allow Draco > > to die in his place, wouldn't be Dumbledore > > at all. > > And besides, I don't understand how Dumbledore's death makes Draco > one bit safer. Valky: Carol and Colebiancardi have both given some pretty strong arguments for this. They are far, IMO, from the whole truth about what happened on the tower, and I don't for a second believe that Dumbledore died *only* to save Draco's soul, but in the sense that the best hope for Draco's, at least temporary, survival came down to Snape being able to protect him I agree. Valky From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 9 06:50:58 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 02:50:58 EDT Subject: Good writer - Shallow and Deep Message-ID: <1dc.46ae0ead.307a17d2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141328 bboyminn wrote: Half-Blood Prince Draco's up to something Harry has a book that someone has written in We take Pensieve 'trips' with Dumbedore and Harry Again, ignoring the climax, and concentrating on the on-going story. So, what I'm really saying is that other than the Pensieve 'trips' with Dumbledore, there really isn't much of a story at all. I certainly doesn't have the depth of plot that GoF or PoA have. But I accept it. Again, things had to be said and done, ground work had to be laid, the Horcruxes had to be introduced. Julie now: One thing I'd like to say in JKR's defense: She stated that Book 6 and Book 7 are really two parts of one story. Looking at it from this perspective, the fact that HBP seemed to lack a solid plot may not be surprising. While the previous five books had complete plots, HBP is only the first half of a plot stretching over two books. It's similar to how Star Wars (the original--Episode IV--whatever) was its own movie, but The Empire Strikes Back was more an exercise in preparation for the concluding episode, Return of the Jedi. (Still, The Empire Strikes Back did have some self-contained plotlines, as does HBP). Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 9 07:40:31 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 03:40:31 EDT Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) Message-ID: <7a.7d747415.307a236f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141329 Carol wrote: So let me ask you again: If Snape had the choice of 1) dying from the broken UV and accomplishing nothing except endangering everyone else, with Dumbledore and Draco killed by the DEs, Harry in grave danger, and the DEs running all over Hogwarts OR 2) killing the unsaveable Dumbledore, saving Draco and Harry, and getting the DEs out of Hogwarts, wouldn't "2" be the better choice, or at least an understandable choice? I'm only posing this question as a "what if," not arguing that this interpretation is the correct one. *If* Dumbledore could not be saved, and *if* the only way Snape could save Harry (and Draco) and get the DEs out of Hogwarts was to kill Dumbledore, did Snape really have a choice? And *if* he made the only possible choice, making himself a murderer to give Harry a chance of destroying Voldemort, doesn't he deserve forgiveness? Julie now: Not only would #2 be the understandable choice for Snape, it would also be the better choice to Dumbledore, and exactly what he would ask of Snape ("Severus, please..."). There is a classic science fiction short story by Tom Goodwin called "The Cold Equations." Hopefully I'm remembering it right, since I no longer have a copy of it, but the gist is this: A pilot is shuttling an emergency supply of medicine to a planet. Without the medicine's arrival in a timely manner, thousands will die. The spaceship has just enough fuel to get the pilot and the medicine to the planet, yet the pilot discovers the ship is overweight and the fuel will run out before he can land on the planet. He then discovers the cause of the extra weight is a teenage girl who is a stowaway. After much discussion with ground control? and getting to know the girl (who thought the ship was going somewhere else, and basically made a mistake/committed a minor crime without malicious intent), the pilot must make a decision. The choices: 1. The pilot can refuse to take any action and deny reality, the ship will run out of fuel before they get to the planet, the ship will crash, he will die, she will die, and thousands on the planet will die from the disease. 2. The pilot can jettison the medicine and/or return with the girl to the origin, in which case it will be too late to take another load of the medicine to the planet, as the thousands of infected people will have died. 3. The pilot can space the girl, thus keeping enough fuel to get himself and the ship to the planet and deliver the medicine, which will save thousands of lives. (Note: the girl cannot fly the ship, so he can't space himself while letting both her and the thousands of sick people survive.) You've probably figured out what the pilot did. He chose #3--with her foreknowledge before he spaced her (which she took well)-- and he made himself watch as she died. She suffered for the decision (obviously), but thousands lived because of it. And the pilot lived with it, painfully. I suspect this is a pretty direct analogy for the situation on the Tower. Snape has very similar choices, as outlined above by Carol. >From all appearances Dumbledore is going to die, either from the potion or the lake water, or from his inability to defend himself in his weakened state against the DEs. Or Snape can AK him. So Snape does have a choice. Here's the problem: The one choice Snape does *not* have is to sacrifice ONLY himself. If he takes what some consider the high road, and refuses to kill Dumbledore, then he dies from the UV, and he very likely takes others with him, including Dumbledore, who is not going to survive the Tower scene either way. If he does kill Dumbledore, then he saves himself, but he ALSO quite likely saves Draco and Harry, and perhaps other students at Hogwarts by getting the DEs out of there. For me, if those are the two choices--Dumbledore alone dies, or he dies and others die with him--then it's pretty clear which alternative Dumbledore would choose. And which Snape would be forced to choose. It's the whole rock and a hard place, choice between two evils, no-win scenario thing. Or, one could call it a "cold equation." It's a purely rational move, based on achieving the best outcome in a bad situation. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 11:32:42 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius Junius Brutus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051009113243.53708.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141330 --- truthbeauty1 wrote: > So I firmly believe that Rowling got the name > from here and I fimly believe that Dumbleodre got to Draco and he > is > going to be killed by his father for trying to help Harry in some > way.If anyone has any thoughts for or agaisnt this I would love to > hear them. Personally I think that as a character, Draco's had his 15 minutes of glory and will recede to the background; we might not see him again, if he's officially a Hogwarts drop-out. Your assumption is that Lucius will oppose Harry because he's still on Voldemort's side as a loyal DE. I rather think that support for the Dark Lord is at an all-time low in the Malfoy household at the end of HBP and that as far as Lucius is concerned, if Harry wants to fulfill his destiny as the Chosen One, that's just fine by him. Having Voldemort back full-time has been nothing but trouble for Lucius and a year's time-out in Azkaban will have given him lots of time to re-think a few things. Not that he's about to invite Hermione's parents out to Malfoy Manor for tea, but I think Lucius wouldn't regret it if Voldemort were defeated. Magda __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 9 12:49:15 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:49:15 -0000 Subject: Nature of Dark Magic - Imperius, Well of Darkness,AK, etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Well, first, my intent in the post I made was to see if I could may my > original hypothesis fit with Neri's 'Intention' hypothesis which I see > as flawed. > It was an attempt to bring together her idea of 'intention' and my > idea of 'destructive in its creation'. I switch the projection of > external intent into drawing on an internal well of 'intent' which I > also feel is destructive, so that with slight adjustments, Neri's idea > would fit into my original hypothesis. Elyse: Oh yes, I had read the thread before I posted, and I'm sorry for the rather merciless snipping. I wasnt targeting your theory for criticism or anything, I'm sorry if you got the idea that I was knocking down the hypothesis. Thats not what I was trying to do. I quite like the Well of Darkness idea! bboyminn: snipped... > > Next, we all have a Well of Darkness within us. We all have the > capability to think of and commit dark, dangerous, and deadly acts > ...but we don't. So why don't we? Well, we have a internal mechanism > that stops us; call it inhabitions, conscience, common sense, or > whatever. The inhibition acts as a barrier between us and the Well of > Darkness that is in us all.> > Now the Imperius curse short circuits this inhibiting mechanism, and > in a state of extremely relaxed euphoria, we are unable to resist the > impulse that is forced on us, and we are unable to maintain that > barrier between our conscious selves and the Well of Darkness within. Elyse: I'm with you here. This goes with Harry's description of being under the curse. The euphoria it produces suppresses any promptings of conscience or inhibition. I agree that it makes it easier to commit horrible deeds with no compunctions whatsoever. But at the same time, we have been told that the voice of reason /conscience/inhibition is *exactly* what is necessary to be able to throw the curse off. (Carol nicely reminded me that it cant be cast off with anger or hatred) In GoF, when Crouch!Moody Imperios Harry, he tells him to jump on the desk. And it is a voice in Harry's head that says things like "Why though? Stupid thing to do really... No, I dont think I will,thanks... No I really dont want to" This is what finally helps Harry throw the curse off. And what Moody is asking him to do is to simply jump on the desk. Hes not asking him to torture his best friend or muder somebody, just a small harmless thing like jumping on a desk. Yet Harry voice of reason is so strong, he tries to stop himself jumping and nearly succeeds. Later, when Voldemort puts him under the curse, its the same... "I will not.. I wont answer.. I wont do it, I wont say it.... " And then Harry throws it off. So when youre being forced to kill or torture, shouldnt that voice of reason or conscience or inhibition or whatever be stronger? It should practically scream itself hoarse, constantly, continually. I think this is what happened with Crouch when he was in the forest. But maybe most wizards cant call up their conscience as easily as Harry can. I like Carol's post on that, and I do wonder about Snape....I pasted Carol's part of it below: >This talent appears to be extremely rare. I have no doubt >that Dumbledore had it. Probably Voldemort does, too, and perhaps >the >ability to resist the Imperius Curse is one of the powers that Harry >received from Voldemort (along with Parseltongue and possibly >possession) when the AK backfired. The Crouches (very powerful >wizards) had only limited powers of resistance, and both of them >were >experts on the curse's effects. Most wizards (even Snape?) would >probably be as defenseless against it as Ron and Neville in >Crouch!Moody's DADA class. Elyse again: Again with reference to Carol's post, which I think is linked with Steve's based on this bboyminn: With no inhibitions and with the surrendering > of your own free will, I think other people can project their > murderous intent through you. In a sense, the Imperiused person > becomes an instrument for the actions and intent of another. > Carol: > Here's a possibility, which I think would work whether AK and Crucio > depend on the intention to kill/torture or the "evil within": Since > the victim of an Imperius Curse has lost his free will and is acting > as the tool of another wizard, he requires neither the intent(ion) to > cast the spell nor the ability to cast it (normally acquired through > concentration and practice). It's the intention/desire/"well of evil" > within the wizard who cast the Imperius and is controlling the victim > that enables the victim to cast the spell It's possible that the power required > to cast an AK or Crucio is transferred along with the will, but if > that were the case, I think Mulciber would not have been so eager to > Imperio a large number of people in VW1. Chances are that the people > he Imperioed were fully qualified wizards with sufficient power of > their own to cast an Unforgiveable Curse; he would not have wanted to > deplete his own powers. As for the will to do evil, I'm pretty sure he > had an unlimited supply. Elyse: Hmmm... If I understand correctly, the person under Imperius is like a pipe that you channel your intent and power to cast an AK into? I like this idea, I like it a lot. This would mean that if you want your Imperiused victim to commit murder, it would require more than just the euphoric feeling characteristic of the spell. It would mean that you have to effectively channel your intent into the Imperiod victim so that the intention behind the AK is really your own. This fits in fine with the intent required of Unforgivables. So when Krum was Crucioing Diggory, it was Crouch!Moody's intention passing through him into his wand, it was Crouch!Moody's enjoyment of watching Diggory in pain that was flowing into the wand through Krum, and that would explain how he could cast a Crucio even though Krum got no pleasure out of seeing Diggory suffer. Of course this would mean that the person who cast an Imperius and is channeling intent would be under severe strain doing it. I imagine he would be depleted of his strength doing so, and if it requires that the power of the AK be the caster of the Imperius as opposed to the power of the victim, then he would have to draw on his "Well of Darkness" too. So it would involve projecting your dark intentions into your Imperiused victim and channeling the resources of your internal well of evil into him to cast a successful AK. Knew we could fit those two theories together somehow....:> Poor Mulciber! Bet it took a lot out of him, forcing people to commit "horrific deeds". Of course this could be wrong, it could be that the intent and power come from the Imperius victim himself, but I still think were on the right track. It explains the creation of Dark Magic, and is inclusive of both Intention and Well of Darkness, both of which make sense to me. It also absolves good people like Krum of any wrongdoing or evil intentions involved...so it keeps Krum fans happy too!:p Thanks to Steve and Carol for un-muddling me and taking time to answer. Enjoyed both your posts thoroughly. Elyse (who likes the Beta Text Editor) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 9 13:05:57 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:05:57 -0000 Subject: Good writer - Two Trees In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141332 > bboyminn: > > I was thinking about this yesterday and the image of two trees came to > mind. One normal tree, upright and branching out, and one inverted > tree with many branches at the bottom converging upward into a single > trunk. > > We in fandom are the normal tree, we can speculate and pontificate, we > can spawn a thousand tangents and create a thousand potential > plotlines for the books. We can branch out; we have infinite > possibilities. > > JKRowling on the other hand is the inverted tree. She is narrowing her > focus to a single trunk. She can not spawn infinite tangents or > plotlines. She has to make her focus narrower and narrower with each > book. Certain things must be said, certain things must be done, and > the narrower her focus becomes, the few plot and story options she has. > > Personally, I would have preferred it if the most recent book (HBP) > was about the continuation of the DA Club, Harry and Draco fighting > over the Black Estate, and the emergence of one or more 'good > Slytherins' from the students. That certainly would have made a more > interesting story. And, if this were the 'Hardy Boys' or 'Nancy Drew' > where the characters are ageless and the author can spawn 100 volumes > over the life of the series, then JKR could certainly come up with > more interesting stories. THEN the possibilities are near infinite. > Pippin: I like the analogy of fanon to a tree, but maybe the better analogy for canon is a tower, broad and bustling at the base but narrowing till it comes to a flagpole at the top. From JKR's point of view, every element of the story is just a building block whose whole purpose is to raise that flagpole into the air so every one can see the banner when it's finally unfurled. And make no mistake, there's a banner-- this is Hermione's alter-ego we're talking about. She's grown up now and knows she'll lose her audience if she preaches, but I'll bet she's still planning to change the world. From JKR's perspective, the tower is already built and the flag is flying -- we're in the position of watching from below as a fog slowly lifts, revealing one story at a time. Whatever that banner is, it's probably not romantic love or the need to reform the inheritance laws, so JKR will not explore those areas in depth. What we will get, I think, once the whole structure is visible, is a sense of how those elements fit into the theme she *is* trying to express. What seems like rambling digression now will echo some element of the dominant theme once that is made clear -- that's the way artistic unity works. In fact such is the power of the human mind to find patterns that critical readers will probably discern echoes of the theme whether the author consciously inserted them or not. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Oct 9 13:33:46 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 06:33:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <7a.7d747415.307a236f@aol.com> Message-ID: <001901c5ccd6$13b5b3f0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141333 -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of juli17 at aol.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 12:41 AM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) Carol wrote: So let me ask you again: If Snape had the choice of 1) dying from the broken UV and accomplishing nothing except endangering everyone else, with Dumbledore and Draco killed by the DEs, Harry in grave danger, and the DEs running all over Hogwarts OR 2) killing the unsaveable Dumbledore, saving Draco and Harry, and getting the DEs out of Hogwarts, wouldn't "2" be the better choice, or at least an understandable choice? I'm only posing this question as a "what if," not arguing that this interpretation is the correct one. *If* Dumbledore could not be saved, and *if* the only way Snape could save Harry (and Draco) and get the DEs out of Hogwarts was to kill Dumbledore, did Snape really have a choice? And *if* he made the only possible choice, making himself a murderer to give Harry a chance of destroying Voldemort, doesn't he deserve forgiveness? sherry: No. Well, i can't get the hypotheticals. We don't know, and neither did Snape, that Dumbledore was for sure dying. We don't know how the unbreakable vow would have manifested itself or when. I'm not convinced that the instant Dumbledore did not die, Sevvy would have dropped dead on the spot. He didn't take time to learn Dumbledore's condition or to learn any other thing. No. He took out his weapon and committed murder. Nothing can or should justify it. As for Julie's Cold Equation story, I can only say, if the pilot had been James Kirk, he'd have found another way and not killed anyone! LOL. I can never be convinced that a no win situation is truly no win. There must be another option. Perhaps, I am too optimistic, but judging only on what we were given on the tower, I cannot conceive of any situation except fake death or self defense that would make Snape's actions forgivable. It's all in the fact that Dumbledore didn't sacrifice himself, but was killed at the hand of someone else. Dumbledore was slipping, if he wanted to save Draco and Snape with his death--and Harry of course--he didn't need Snape to do it for him. But then, I'm not Dumbledore, and I do not think death is the next great adventure, neither do I fear it. But I don't accept it easily when I lose people I love. "I am not resigned." So, I just can't forgive Snape, because there is nothing that makes murder a reasonable choice to me. Perhaps it comes from my very personal knowledge that there are real villains out there who would like the permission to "euphonize" old, sick or disabled people. I just see Dumbledore as an old man, still incredibly powerful but sick. He should have been rescued not betrayed and murdered. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 9 14:21:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:21:50 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <001901c5ccd6$13b5b3f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141334 > sherry: > As for Julie's Cold Equation story, I can only say, if the pilot had been > James Kirk, he'd have found another way and not killed anyone! LOL. I can > never be convinced that a no win situation is truly no win. There must be > another option. Pippin: Then Dumbledore was wrong to destroy the Philosopher's Stone and condemn his old friends Nicholas and Perenelle to death. In which case, if Dumbledore was also murdered for the cause, he received his just deserts. Very neat! Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 9 15:50:25 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:50:25 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141335 "colebiancardi" wrote: > you are forgetting a little thing called > the Unbreakable Vow that Snape took. I certainly haven't forgotten about that vow! Outside of Dumbledore's murder itself that vow is the best evidence we have that Snape is more than nasty and unpleasant, he is evil. I hope you're not suggesting that we should forgive Snape because his hands were tied due to that vow he choose to make so he had to murder Dumbledore. It's like a man killing his parents and then asking the court for mercy because he's an orphan. > how could you not see what would happen on > the tower if Snape hadn't done what he did? If Snape had not made that vow Dumbledore would be alive and the Death Eaters dead. > Hard choices in War. But not hard enough. Dumbledore seemed willing to risk EVERYTHING to save a slime ball like Draco, but if your theory is correct he didn't seem to give a damn about Harry, or Snape for that matter, because he kept Harry in the dark, again. Dumbledore must have known Harry well enough by now to know he would never rest until Snape was dead. > DD is a wise wizard who probably knows more > about the situation up on the tower better > than Harry. I don't think so. Dumbledore was very surprised to find Death Eaters in the castle that night but Harry was not, Harry was expecting it, he even knew the room the trouble would come from. > Most of DD's mistakes have not been that huge, IMHO. Dumbledore hired Quirrell, in fact he hired 4 homicidal teachers in 6 years. Dumbledore had no idea what Harry's father and his friends were up to. Dumbledore froze Harry on that tower. Dumbledore trusted Snape [....] And speaking of Quirrell, Snape suspected him from day one and then at the Quidditch game when Harry almost died he knew for sure, but apparently he never said a word about it to Dumbledore. In most schools a teacher trying to murder a student is frowned on, yet Dumbledore took no action against him, he even left the school leaving Harry no protection against Quirrell. To the day he died I don't think Dumbledore ever knew Quirrell tried to kill Harry at that game because Snape never told him. Why? > He could not control Sirius from going > to MoM - was that a mistake? Yes, a HUGE mistake as Dumbledore himself admits. If Dumbledore had not kept Harry in the dark about the Prophecy neither he nor Sirius would have any reason to go to the ministry and Sirius would be alive today. > Yes, DD has made mistakes, but to have a > colossial mistake in judgement, over 16 > years, with Snape is more than a mistake > it makes DD a foolish, unwise wizard. If it makes you feel any better, Snape is a very very smart man and I think he fooled Voldemort just as badly as he fooled Dumbledore. Eggplant From muellem at bc.edu Sun Oct 9 16:35:02 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:35:02 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141336 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > you are forgetting a little thing called > > the Unbreakable Vow that Snape took. > I certainly haven't forgotten about that vow! according to your original post to which my response was for, it seems you did. You stated Snape could have taken out the DE's. Hence, my comment. > Outside of Dumbledore's> murder itself that vow is the best evidence >we have that Snape is more> than nasty and unpleasant, he is evil. Really? Evil? If anything, I think he lacked some foresight - I don't believe he saw the third part of the vow coming. However, it may have been what DD ordered Snape to do - to win & cement the Malfoy's trust in Snape. The UV did that. > I>hope you're not suggesting > that we should forgive Snape because his hands were tied due to that > vow he choose to make so he had to murder Dumbledore. It's like a man > killing his parents and then asking the court for mercy because he's an orphan. > No, because what happened in the tower is nothing at all like a person killing their parents & asking mercy for it. We don't know the whole story up in the tower yet. It could be as black & white as you paint it, or it could be more complex. So far, Rowling's explainations have been complex - that things aren't what they seem to be. And Snape is not all he seems to be. What he is, we don't know. I am going by all the things he has done in the past and DD's word(he trusts Snape). I see it outside of Harry's POV. As do many others. > > > how could you not see what would happen on > > the tower if Snape hadn't done what he did? > > If Snape had not made that vow Dumbledore would be alive and the Death > Eaters dead. maybe, maybe not. If Snape is as truly evil as you stated, he would have still killed DD, regardless of the vow. The vow is what makes this scene tricky. If there had been no vow, and Snape killed Dumbledore, then I would be more in your camp. > > > Hard choices in War. > > But not hard enough. Dumbledore seemed willing to risk EVERYTHING to > save a slime ball like Draco, but if your theory is correct he didn't > seem to give a damn about Harry, or Snape for that matter, because he > kept Harry in the dark, again. Dumbledore must have known Harry well > enough by now to know he would never rest until Snape was dead. I wouldn't say that DD doesn't give a damn about Harry or Snape. Harry's soul is not in danger. Draco's is. Draco was trying to kill DD - putting his soul at risk. Snape is a spy and my thoughts on why DD has Snape protect Draco is that Snape's soul is already been tampered with, from his days as a DE. Snape's role, IMHO, is to protect & clear the path for Harry to take on Voldemort, regardless of the further damage it will do to his(Snape's) soul. Since Harry is an open book to Voldemort(can't hide his feelings), perhaps it is best, for now, that Harry does not know Snape's true role. It would risk everything that DD & Snape have fought for up until now. > > > DD is a wise wizard who probably knows more > > about the situation up on the tower better > > than Harry. > > I don't think so. Dumbledore was very surprised to find Death Eaters > in the castle that night but Harry was not, Harry was expecting it, he > even knew the room the trouble would come from. The situation up on the tower that I was referring to is the interaction between Snape & Dumbledore. > > > Most of DD's mistakes have not been that huge, IMHO. > > Dumbledore hired Quirrell, in fact he hired 4 homicidal teachers in 6 > years. Dumbledore had no idea what Harry's father and his friends were > up to. Dumbledore froze Harry on that tower. Dumbledore trusted > Snape [....] > > And speaking of Quirrell, Snape suspected him from day one and then at > the Quidditch game when Harry almost died he knew for sure, but > apparently he never said a word about it to Dumbledore. In most > schools a teacher trying to murder a student is frowned on, yet > Dumbledore took no action against him, he even left the school leaving > Harry no protection against Quirrell. To the day he died I don't think > Dumbledore ever knew Quirrell tried to kill Harry at that game because > Snape never told him. Why? How do we know that Snape never told DD about Quirrell? Besides that, Snape didn't know that Quirrell was actually QuirrellVort, Snape just thought Quirrell was a Dark Wizard. DD does a lot of things in the series that puts Harry in danger - could it be some sort of training for the final showdown with Voldemort? Also, if DD was always hanging around, there would be no Harry Potter series :) > > > He could not control Sirius from going > > to MoM - was that a mistake? > > Yes, a HUGE mistake as Dumbledore himself admits. If Dumbledore had > not kept Harry in the dark about the Prophecy neither he nor Sirius > would have any reason to go to the ministry and Sirius would be alive > today. Again, people make mistakes, but again, I don't think DD has stepped over any line. Sirius knew better as well, but he went anyway. If Harry knew the Prophecy earlier in his life, what type of choices would he have made? The thing is, as we learned in book 7, it didn't matter if Harry knew the prophecy or not - Harry would still be on a quest to defeat Voldemort, because he murdered Harry's parents. > > > Yes, DD has made mistakes, but to have a > > colossial mistake in judgement, over 16 > > years, with Snape is more than a mistake > > it makes DD a foolish, unwise wizard. > > If it makes you feel any better, Snape is a very very smart man and I > think he fooled Voldemort just as badly as he fooled Dumbledore. > Well, I think Snape & DD are very smart and I think Snape's role as the bad guy is fooling Harry quite nicely. Harry isn't as wise on people just yet. Or least the actions of adults. He is still a kid, and children tend to view things pretty black & white, although Hermoine seems to be the exception to that rule in this series. colebiancardi. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 9 17:02:08 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 9 Oct 2005 17:02:08 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1128877328.13.65129.m24@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141337 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 9, 2005 Time: 1:00PM CDT (GMT-05:00) 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 celizwh at intergate.com Sun Oct 9 18:22:10 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:22:10 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <001901c5ccd6$13b5b3f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141338 sherry: > No. Well, i can't get the hypotheticals. We don't know, and neither did Snape, that Dumbledore was for sure dying. I just see Dumbledore as an old man, still incredibly powerful but sick. He should have been rescued not betrayed and murdered. houyhnhnm: If Dumbledore was "sick" and in need of rescuing, then we can take it as a given that he was not going to survive against four Death Eaters. He couldn't even stand. He was "for sure" dying. To argue otherwise is sophistical. As for Snape not dying from breaking the UV, the only canonical information about the operation of UVs is Ron's statement. ------------------------------------------------- "... What happens if you break it, then?" "You die," Ron said simply. ------------------------------------------------- That's pretty straightforward. You are free to write your own fanfiction and invent your own explanation for the working of the UV, but it is not really fair to use your invention as the premise of an argument and call it "canonical". From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Oct 8 05:31:29 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 05:31:29 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141339 Eggplant: > Actually I think a nasty uncompassionate man with no empathy is the > very definition of evil, and I certainly don't understand why a person > with those tendencies would be loyal to Dumbledore and devote 16 years > of his life to defeating Voldemort. I certainly agree with the first point. A nasty, uncompassionate man with no empathy is evil by definition. However, I do have to say that although Snape is, by definition, evil, I can see several reasons why an evil man of Snape's type might side with Dumbledore, at least for a period. He might be trying to save his own hide. He might be trying to gain revenge for one thing or another. But certainly it is impossible to call Snape good, regardless of who he's working for. Carol: > Even if killing him was the only way to save Draco and Harry and get > the Death Eaters out of the school? If Snape had died (killed by the > UV or the Death Eaters), quite possibly both boys would have died as > well. And there was no way to save Dumbledore, who would have been > killed by the Death Eaters if he wasn't killed by the potion first. > > I'm not saying that's the case, but *if* it's the case, wouldn't it at > least complicate matters and partially excuse Snape? It does for me. No, I don't think it would excuse Snape in any way. The end does not justify the means, and there are some things you just don't do. Killing a defenseless man, your mentor no less, in cold blood (or hot blood or lukewarm blood) is one of them. If Snape did indeed kill Dumbledore, and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence saying he did not, then I say his action is inexcusable. Lupinlore From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Oct 9 18:43:02 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:43:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002f01c5cd01$480cffc0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141340 houyhnhnm: If Dumbledore was "sick" and in need of rescuing, then we can take it as a given that he was not going to survive against four Death Eaters. He couldn't even stand. He was "for sure" dying. To argue otherwise is sophistical. As for Snape not dying from breaking the UV, the only canonical information about the operation of UVs is Ron's statement. ------------------------------------------------- "... What happens if you break it, then?" "You die," Ron said simply. ------------------------------------------------- That's pretty straightforward. You are free to write your own fanfiction and invent your own explanation for the working of the UV, but it is not really fair to use your invention as the premise of an argument and call it "canonical". Sherry now: First of all, we do not know that Dumbledore was dying. We know he was sick, but we have no *canon* to say he would not or could not recover. as for the unbreakable vow, I'm not denying what is said about it. I'm saying we don't know how that happens. We don't know if Snape would have died at the moment Dumbledore did not die. After all, Dumbledore didn't die on two fumbled attempts of Draco's. why didn't Snape keel over then? I'm only saying that we don't know enough about how the vow works to know how it would have caused Snape's death. Or when? As for fan fiction, no thanks. i like what JKR writes and feel no need to write my own version. And from my point of view, your belief that Snape murdered Dumbledore for some noble cause is just as likely to be fan fiction as your idea that Snape committed murder at all is. We are simply interpreting the canon we have in different ways. And while I'm here, because I am ready to stop debating Snape till book seven, since neither side will ever convince the other ... here's a hypothetical for all of you who believe that Dumbledore's death was for the good of everyone. What if it's proven that Snape did indeed murder Dumbledore for his own reasons? if you can say that the death of Dumbledore was for the greater good and calmly believe that, then if Snape is shown to be a murderer either for Voldemort's sake or his own, what should happen to him? Would you then also advocate for his death as just punishment? i do not. As I said in an earlier post on this subject, I am for life in all situations. Dumbledore should have lived. Snape should not be executed, if he did commit murder. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 18:42:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:42:37 -0000 Subject: Snape and Quirrell (Was: Trial of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141341 Eggplant wrote: > To the day he died I don't think Dumbledore ever knew Quirrell tried to kill Harry at that game because Snape never told him. Carol responds: It would have been very strange if Dumbledore had not heard some version of the jinxed broom incident, which happened in front of almost the whole school, and asked his chief staff members what they knew about it. Moreover, it's rather difficult to understand what Dumbledore means when he says to Harry, "Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt. . . . I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even" (SS Am. ed. 300, ellipsis in original) unless he knows quite well that Snape tried to save Harry from Quirrell's curse. (He probably also knew Snape's reasons for wanting to referee the later Quidditch game and how Snape had injured his leg since the words suggest a continued effort, not a one-time effort, however significant.) Note that the scene where Dumbledore and Harry are discussing Quirrell is the first one in which Dumbledore says, "Professor Snape, Harry" (299)--an interesting contrast to his description of Quirrell on the same page ("full of hatred, greed, ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort"). One tried to murder Harry (twice); the other saved Harry's life. It seems clear to me that Dumbledore knows it. Didn't mean to go into so much detail as I think the quotation about Snape's working hard to protect Harry that year is sufficient in itself to refute the assertion that Snape didn't report this incident to Dumbledore. IMO, the Quirrell is one reason why Dumbledore trusts Snape and I see no reason to doubt that DD knows the whole story (even, maybe, who set Snape's robes on fire). Carol From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 8 16:19:47 2005 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 16:19:47 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141342 "katydid3626" wrote: > > Snape is a nasty man, not nice and > > not compassionate. We see very > > little evidence of any empathetic > > tendencies. But there is a big > > difference between that and evil. Eggplant: > Actually I think a nasty uncompassionate man with no empathy is the > very definition of evil, and I certainly don't understand why a person > with those tendencies would be loyal to Dumbledore and devote 16 years > of his life to defeating Voldemort. I agree that Snape qualifies under many semantic definitions as being evil. However, that being said, he still may be loyal to Dumbledore for reasons unrelated to his overall behavior towards everyone other than DD. We may also not have all the information about all of the reasons Snape has for being loyal to DD. Certainly we know DD gave him a second chance after his experience as a DE, even though DD wouldn't let Snape be a DADA teacher. I am open to Snape being a trusted ally of DD, even though he is certainly a nasty person otherwise. The evidence at face value does point towards him being guilty, however, that much is true. I can't see him getting off legally in a court of law with the evidence we have been shown so far. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 19:05:09 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:05:09 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141343 Carol earlier: > > Even if killing him was the only way to save Draco and Harry and get the Death Eaters out of the school? If Snape had died (killed by the UV or the Death Eaters), quite possibly both boys would have died as well. And there was no way to save Dumbledore, who would have been killed by the Death Eaters if he wasn't killed by the potion first. > > > > I'm not saying that's the case, but *if* it's the case, wouldn't it at least complicate matters and partially excuse Snape? It does for me. > Lupinlore: > No, I don't think it would excuse Snape in any way. The end does not justify the means, and there are some things you just don't do. Killing a defenseless man, your mentor no less, in cold blood (or hot blood or lukewarm blood) is one of them. If Snape did indeed kill Dumbledore, and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence saying he did not, then I say his action is inexcusable. Carol responds: Then you're saying that Snape should have let Draco and Harry die, along with Dumbledore and himself, letting the DEs (among them Fenrir Grayback) run loose in the school? How is that better than limiting the deaths to one? Not to mention that if Harry dies, the WW is doomed. This is a hypothetical proposition, remember, but perhaps the distinction between what is right and what is easy isn't quite as clearcut as you seem to think. And the question *does* assume that Snape killed Dumbledore, risking his own soul (and job and freedom and reputation) to save the people he could save as opposed to the one man he could not. Carol From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Sat Oct 8 19:29:29 2005 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:29:29 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141344 juli17 at a... wrote: > > I'd say it's very premature to judge the extent of Snape's guilt. Eggplant: > And I'd say in the real world not one person on Death Row has evidence > against them stronger than what we have against Snape. And what about the scene where a young, strong, healthy boy forces an old, weak and injured man to drink something this old man clearly doesn't want to drink, is making him suffer terribly and probably even die? Do we think that this is an evil boy trying to kill the old man? No, because we know that DD himself made Harry do this and we know how much Harry hates to have to do this. No such information is given to us about the tower incident. Neither do we know what talks DD and Snape had beforehand nor do we "see" into Snape's head. Therefore I also think it's premature to judge. claudia From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 9 02:12:33 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 02:12:33 -0000 Subject: Good writer - Shallow and Deep In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141345 Steve/bboyminn: > So, my hope is that JKR can and will write a spectacular final book > that will blow us all away, but my fear is that the last book will > read more like a list, a list of items being resolved until the final > BIG ITEM is resolved and we arrive at the epilog; item, item, item, > item, BIG ITEM, epilog, end. > > I am satisfied with HBP, it moved the story forward and told us things > we needed to know, but as a stand-alone book, I don't count it among > the best books I've ever read. So; important as part of the series, > but weak on its own. > > But, again, that weakness leaves me very worried about the final book. A very good point, and I think it actually speaks to what bothered a lot of people about HBP. I think in a real sense JKR is ALREADY in "list checking" mode. Looking at HBP, parts of it very much read as if the book were being composed by "list": Horcruxes, check. Harry brave for Sirius, check. Harry/Ginny, check. Remus/Tonks, check. Snape, check. Aragog, check. Etc. The question that arises is whether JKR was doing radical triage to get everything into place for her pre-set ending, or whether this is just the start of a cascade of "box checking." One hopes the former, but fears the latter. As Steve points out, there is just so much that cries out to be resolved you wonder how JKR can do it all without either leaving some important threads hanging or else resorting to lots of hand-waving and box-checking. In addition to his list, I would add things like the ultimate reckoning with Dolores Umbridge (we know from JKR herself that she still has some role to play), the werewolf and giant and house-elf subplots (including the fate of Kreacher), the whole dementor crisis, and several more things, not least being Ron/Hermione. Joy. Lupinlore From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 9 19:34:30 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:34:30 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141346 Eggplant wrote: > > But not hard enough. Dumbledore seemed willing to risk EVERYTHING to > save a slime ball like Draco, but if your theory is correct he didn't > seem to give a damn about Harry, or Snape for that matter, because he > kept Harry in the dark, again. Dumbledore must have known Harry well > enough by now to know he would never rest until Snape was dead. > Julie says: I think you're making a completely false assumption here. What Dumbledore knows about Harry by now is that he will NEVER kill Snape. Harry is not a murderer. He couldn't kill Bella, he was very unsettled to learn he might have to kill Voldemort, by far the most evil man in the WW. He also stopped Sirius and Lupin from killing Peter Pettigrew. Admittedly, Harry was angry enough to try and Crucio Snape, but that isn't a killing curse. Should Harry ever have Snape completely under his power--even if it turns out that Snape is completely evil--Harry still won't murder Snape. Turn Snape over to authorities, and gladly see him sent to Azkaban for life, yes. Kill Snape, no. And I'm thankful for that. You seem to be all for Harry killing for revenge, because Snape deserves it from your POV. But it doesn't matter what Snape deserves in the end. The only thing that matters is who Harry is--a true Hero, or one sinks into the very evil he's fighting. And we already know which one JKR has chosen. Julie From eleni3 at optonline.net Sun Oct 9 04:49:57 2005 From: eleni3 at optonline.net (foodiedb29) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:49:57 -0000 Subject: One and the one Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141347 Hi all, I just read on a site, that in the prophecy as written in the UK edition, the word one is first written as One, with a capital, and then the next time with a lowercase "o". So, if that is true, maybe there are two ones. A One, and a one. Did that make any sense? From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 9 20:12:59 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:12:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's life vs. Dumbledore's (was: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape) References: Message-ID: <010b01c5cd0d$d8eda8d0$6172400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141348 Eggplant: >> if I had to decide between >> letting Draco die and murdering >> Dumbledore it's a no brainer. >> Goodbye Draco. >>Valky >> Heavens eggplant! Alright if that is your >> opinion, then it's your opinion. But how >> could Dumbledore share that with you? Magpie: I agree Dumbledore wouldn't agree with it, though I also don't know that saving Draco was DD's main concern on the Tower. But I also wanted to add that from my perspective, given that choice, saving Draco is the no-brainer, but probably because I'm looking at it from another perspective. And when I say "saving Draco" I don't mean that I think that Snape killing Dumbledore isn't murder, but that I can easily see Dumbledore considering Draco's survival to be more important, and that as a reader I think it offers more of an advantage. (Killing is always more difficult than the innocent imagine...) If we're talking about just a practical wartime descision, obviously the brilliant general is far more valuable than a child pawn for the other side. Draco would be an easy loss, Dumbledore a great loss. But this is not a regular battle, and it's not going to be won by the brilliant strategy of Dumbledore the General. DD's part in the story is over. He knows it, the author knows it, most of the sixth book seems to be about preparing for exactly this. Harry has to face the final book without him, and presumably he'll wind up doing great. But it's more than that. There have been hints about what's really at stake in the books, and what's at stake is not simply killing Voldemort. Voldemort is more a symptom of a bigger problems--2 major examples of which relate to Draco in some way. The first is breaking the cycle of hatred and school feuds. Snape is obviously important for that, as its his continued hatred of James that seems to drive some of his worst behavior, and his worst behavior always hurts the good side. It's really not up to Harry to make this better for Snape since it was his father whom Snape hated to begin with, but I think the fact that in the very first book Dumbledore explains Snape's actions by saying that he and James hated each other, much like Harry and Draco, means that there's more symbolic weight to Draco than simply being a poor excuse for a human being who is therefore expendable. Draco may wind up dead or in jail, but I think that would be a very depressing and pessimistic ending given that theme. The fact that Harry has already begun to view him a little differently (and Draco is is less focused on Harry as well) points to something less depressing. More importantly, there's the Sorting Hat's song, held back until fifth year, but I think very important to the series. However nice Hogwarts may have seemed to Harry when he showed up, it's a school that is broken and wounded, and it's suffering for it. The hat explains how it was founded, how all the founders fought with each other, and how the fighting stopped because one of them-Slytherin-left. This stopped the fighting, but at a price. Throughout the series--especially in books V and VI, the school has been vulnerable because of this rift. Hermione, worried about the hat's warnings, invites other houses into the DA but winds up recreating the original rift. Three houses in the DA, while Slytherin actively works against it, siding with outside enemies of the school. In HBP all the protections in the world don't protect Hogwarts from a Slytherin on the inside inviting the enemy in. And of course it's a Slytherin at the school who kills Dumbledore. I don't think this is a case of Slytherins being evil and so we should just get rid of them. I seem to remember recently someone brought up Dumbledore referring to Snape has having "come back" to them when he became a spy, and wondering if that meant Snape once worked for them before he became a DE. I think DD considers all Hogwarts students as belonging on his side, so when Snape joined with them he was "coming back." The most compelling Slytherin stories, imo, involve this "coming back," especially after "going away" (joining Voldemort). As I said, I don't think this has to be about Slytherin being evil. JKR has mentioned that the houses all represent an element and that you have to accept all parts of yourself to be healthy. Hogwarts needs all of its houses and elements (water is pretty important), and the fact that Slytherin is removed from the other houses is, imo, one reason it's destructive. Had it been Ravenclaw who left perhaps they would be the "bad" house working against the rest. Not to get too into psychology, but it's like the way they say things you repress about yourself can torment you. Obviously I'm not suggesting that the seventh book will be all about Draco--or Snape. I am suggesting that a true understanding with a (formerly) DE Slytherin would potentially be a much greater victory than the saving of that one kid. And I think this seems important to the author as well, since she's come up with three versions of that kid. There's Regulus, whom we know turned against the DEs, but was unable to live and join with others (though his attempt to do so may finally come to light and thus help heal the rift). There's Snape who allegedly did make the switch but did not heal anything (and this may not have been entirely Snape's doing--I can imagine the kinds of mistakes DD's admitted to making being part of the problem here, and that this is one reason people continue to sympathize with Snape). I don't think it's that far-fetched to think that DD may have seen potential value in Draco beyond this one kid not dying at 16, a value that may yet become clear. He's closely to tied to a lot of important things in the main plot. If DD saw value in him, which I think he did, it was not just a sentimental desire to preserve his innocence. He had something in mind letting Draco deal with his problems the way he did in HBP. So while I can't point to how these things will play out, I really do think that Harry's relationship with his own generation of Slytherin (and his father's) may be important. It's that future that must be put right. Harry can't rely on Grandpa's generation to temporarily fix things by figuring out a way to destroy the current face of the larger problem. The hat does not warn the school that without its headmaster it will be lost, it warns that without all its members it will be lost. None of this gives Snape the right to kill Dumbledore, obviously, but the loss of Dumbledore at this point is far from devestating, and the scene on the Tower may turn out to be more useful than it seems now. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 20:23:10 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:23:10 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <002f01c5cd01$480cffc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141349 Sherry wrote: ... here's a hypothetical for all of you who believe that Dumbledore's death was for the good of everyone. What if it's proven that Snape did indeed murder Dumbledore for his own reasons? if you can say that the death of Dumbledore was for the greater good and calmly believe that, then if Snape is shown to be a murderer either for Voldemort's sake or his own, what should happen to him? Would you then also advocate for his death as just punishment? i do > not. As I said in an earlier post on this subject, I am for life in all > situations. Dumbledore should have lived. Snape should not be executed, if > he did commit murder. Carol responds: Okay, I'll play along even though you didn't accept my hypothetical proposition and consider the possibility that *if* Snape had no choice and was acting for the greater good he should be forgiven. (It was only an "if.") Anyway, here goes: *If* Snape turns out to be just a murderer and a traitor who's been on Voldemort's side all along, I'll burn my books. Oops. That wasn't what you asked. *If* he's ESE! (which I obviously don't believe) he should be sent to Azkaban and be denied access to books or any other form of intellectual stimulation because he's a complete idiot. Or forced to read Witch Weekly or the Quibbler and knit socks for house-elves without magic. Or better yet, scrub chamber pots without magic. Seriously, in the unlikely event that he's Voldemort's man through and through, he should be left to himself in Azkaban with Bellatrix Lestrange in the next cell over--a choice between talking to a madwoman through a chink in the wall or talking to no one for the rest of his life, thinking about how he wasted his intelligence and his powers through service to evil instead of loyally following the only man who ever trusted him. Throw in a few worries about the consequences of a split soul in the afterlife for good measure. If he's lucky, he'll die before his mid-forties. *If* he's OFH! and killed Dumbledore for no other reason than to save himself (and saved Draco only to prevent the UV from kicking in rather than because he cared about him), then everything depends on whether he redeems himself later. I'd want him to feel remorse and die, or at least risk his life, protecting Harry. But OFH!Snape has messed himself up pretty badly already, having lost his job, his income for the year (McGonagall's not going to owl him his galleons for the year), his position as spy for either side, his freedom, the trust of everyone in the WW . . . . So the DEs are afraid of him and LV is convinced he was never Dumbledore's man but retains his suspicions nonetheless. What kind of life is that? He's in more danger now than he ever was as a double agent, and he's killed his own protector to boot. If LV loses (which he will) and OFH!Snape is still on the run (rather than dead), I suppose the best punishment would be for him to have to live for the rest of his (short) life as Sirius Black did, on the run, hated by everyone, without the advantage of being able to transform into a dog. Or he could turn himself in and choose Azkaban. Best bet for OFH!Snape is definitely to die defending Harry and face whatever the afterlife has in store for him. But *if* he's Dumbledore's man, trapped into a terrible choice by the UV and by Dumbledore's decision to fly to the tower rather than remaining at the Three Broomsticks while Harry ran to Snape for help (*that* IMO is Dumbledore's huge mistake), then I think his own remorse will be sufficient punishment for all his misdeeds, and I believe and hope that he'll be allowed to play a significant role in the downfall of Voldemort (not replacing Harry as hero, of course!), but redeeming himself and earning Harry's forgiveness. Whether Snape lives beyond that moment and how he'll earn a living having earned a reputation throughout the WW as a murderer is for JKR to decide. At least I hope that redemption would heal his torn and spotted soul and give him peace, even if it's only for a moment before his death. At any rate, I believe that Harry will have to forgive Snape in order to defeat Voldemort through love, and I don't see how that can happen if Snape is ESE!. Whatever happens, IMO, Snape has to be redeemed. Come on now, Sherry. *If* Snape was acting for the greater good when he killed Dumbledore and *if* he really had no choice, wouldn't you forgive him? It's only a hypothetical proposition, and I went along with yours. BTW, the Leaky Cauldron now has a Snape poll with choices ranging from serving him up salted to the Dementors to giving him a hug: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/ Carol, voting for the private potions lab on a private island but hoping that he also has recourse to books, food, wine, parchment and quills (to write new Potions and DADA texts), an owl to correspond with Lupin, a wand, and, erm, shampoo From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 9 20:34:31 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:34:31 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141350 "colebiancardi" wrote: > Really? Evil? Yes really evil. > If anything, I think he lacked some foresight > I don't believe he saw the third part of > the vow coming. Well, I certainly hope JKR doesn't take Snape in that direction. My Snape, the evil but brilliant criminal mastermind who fooled the two greatest wizards of the age for 16 years at least earns my respect. Your Snape, the brain dead dumb comically inept secret agent just earns my contempt; I keep thinking of Inspector Clouseau and Maxwell Smart. > However, it may have been what DD ordered > Snape to do - to win & cement the Malfoy's > trust in Snape. The UV did that. The only people who do things like that are characters in very bad fantasy novels, nobody else. Can you imagine book 7 with that premise as the foundation? I can't. > We don't know the whole story up in > the tower yet. We never know the whole story about anything but I don't know of any great mystery that went on in that tower on that night that needs explaining, the events were tragic but clear. > If there had been no vow, and Snape > killed Dumbledore, then I would be > more in your camp. The vow in no way excuses Snape's treachery, not one bit! Nobody put a gun to his head, he agreed to make it. > How do we know that Snape never told > DD about Quirrell? I would think trying to murder a student would be grounds for dismissal, or a least a pay cut, but Dumbledore did nothing except leave Harry and Quirrell alone in the castle while he went off to London. And in 6 books Dumbledore never once talks about the time Quirrell tried to kill Harry at a Quidditch game. I don't think Snape could have told him. > Sirius knew better as well, but he went anyway. Sirius was in no more danger than any other member of the Order when they went to the Ministry, in fact most of them were injured it's just that Sirius was the one injured the most and died. Eggplant From kjones at telus.net Sun Oct 9 20:52:39 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:52:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43498317.6060004@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141351 > Lupinlore: > > No, I don't think it would excuse Snape in any way. The end does > not justify the means, and there are some things you just don't do. > Killing a defenseless man, your mentor no less, in cold blood (or hot > blood or lukewarm blood) is one of them. If Snape did indeed kill > Dumbledore, and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence saying > he did not, then I say his action is inexcusable. > > Carol responds: > Then you're saying that Snape should have let Draco and Harry die, > along with Dumbledore and himself, letting the DEs (among them Fenrir > Grayback) run loose in the school? How is that better than limiting > the deaths to one? Not to mention that if Harry dies, the WW is doomed. KJ Writes: To me, this whole argument points out the difference quite strongly between "what is easy and what is right." In real life it is always going to be other people who determine whether or not the choice was correct. For some people, it is right to say that, for anyone faced with the choice that Snape was perhaps faced with, the only choice to make would have been to let things play out as they would have if Dumbledore had not been killed. What then occurred could be blamed on fate or mischance, but the person making the choice would be full of moral self-congratulation for choosing not to kill. He would even become a hero for choosing to give his life to protect his dying mentor. Snape could have stalled a bit, but to what purpose? No one was able to get up there to help. Snape could have attacked the DE's but probably would have died, as the UV had come to the moment of choice. If the Vow worked as we are meant to believe, Snape would have died, Dumbledore would have been killed immediately, Harry would have been freed from the spell and would have been killed or kidnapped. More fighting would have taken place downstairs, because the only reason that the defenders held back was because Snape was there. If things had gone poorly enough, Voldemort could also have ended up there, as he did at the MoM and the whole WW would have been over. As a result of Snape's choice, whether on Dumbledore's instructions or his own interpretation of the scene, Harry was protected and safe, there were minimal injuries, only one death that apparently would have taken place anyway, the DEs were immediately removed from the castle, Snape's position as a spy was protected and enhanced, the mission to destroy the horcruxes remains a secret, which it would not if Harry had been captured, and Draco was partially successful, which might allow him to survive his next meeting with Voldemort. So, if one looks at the results of the decision made, appalling as it is, it is easy to see which was the correct decision, if not the easy one. If Snape was "evil" he would have let the DEs kill Dumbledore. He chose to do it himself and presumably make it quick and painless. These kinds of decisions are made every day in the medical field. If you have two candidates for a liver transplant and both are going to die without the surgery, it will be given to the person with the best chance of success. The older person, or the sicker person will not receive it. If one of the recipients is an alcoholic, his chance of a transplant drops to nil. The person who does not receive the transplant is condemned to death, but no one calls the doctor, who has to choose, evil, or murderer. Neither do doctors stall both patients in the hope that another organ might become available. This kind of delay, in the faint hope of not having to make the choice, would result in the deaths of both candidates. This is, perhaps, the reason that JKR wrote Snape as she did. I can think of no other character in the books who would be capable of making this kind of moral decision. The enormous contrast between Snape and Harry is Harry's inability to sacrifice anyone for the good of the cause. Harry already refused to allow the death of Peter Pettigrew, who became the one responsible for the return of Voldemort. This might make Harry "good" and a hero in the eyes of many, but his decision was obviously the wrong one in lives cost as a result. KJ From muellem at bc.edu Sun Oct 9 21:14:32 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:14:32 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > Really? Evil? > > Yes really evil. well, we will have to agree to disagree. I think Snape is not a nice man, to put it mildly, but I don't think he is *evil*. > > > If anything, I think he lacked some foresight > > I don't believe he saw the third part of > > the vow coming. > > Well, I certainly hope JKR doesn't take Snape in that direction. My > Snape, the evil but brilliant criminal mastermind who fooled the two > greatest wizards of the age for 16 years at least earns my respect. > Your Snape, the brain dead dumb comically inept secret agent just > earns my contempt; I keep thinking of Inspector Clouseau and Maxwell > Smart. well, that is your opinion & you are entitled to it. However, by making Snape human and a man who does make mistakes, does not equate Snape to being brain-dead. Otherwise, is DD brain-dead, cause he made mistakes? If anything, it shows a soul who is conflicted and torn between what is right and wrong, what is the easy way and what is the hard way. If Snape is what you have depicted, I think of Ming from Flash-Gordon or some other inept villian who makes long speeches and then falls to his demise(The Evil Overlord theory). I think Snape is a bit more complex than that. I also think he is much smarter than wanting to take over the wizarding world or being just out for himself. He will gain nothing by either choices, so that just leaves him in Voldy's camp - where he gains nothing either. In DD's world, he gained some peace for himself - even if it was to continue to hate James. > > > However, it may have been what DD ordered > > Snape to do - to win & cement the Malfoy's > > trust in Snape. The UV did that. > > The only people who do things like that are characters in very bad > fantasy novels, nobody else. Can you imagine book 7 with that premise > as the foundation? I can't. Well, Rowling has done this by introducing the UV in book 6. So, you are basically stating that theme is bad & cheesy, yet SHE put it in. She made it that way. DD knows about the Vow - if he thought Snape was using it against him, I am sure DD would have no problems taking Snape out. Instead, DD gave Snape the DADA job - knowing full well Snape would leave Hogwarts at the end of the term. > > > We don't know the whole story up in > > the tower yet. > > We never know the whole story about anything but I don't know of any > great mystery that went on in that tower on that night that needs > explaining, the events were tragic but clear. > Tragic yes. Clear, no. We don't know - we only know Harry's POV. We don't know Snape's POV or what transpired between the two up in the tower. It is even more tragic if one believes that Snape killed DD to save Draco, Harry and the rest of the school. It is even more tragic if one believes that Snape did what he was ordered to do by Dumbledore. I think Rowling makes a point of this, when Dumbledore tells Harry that Harry must do everything he orders him to do. He makes Harry promise. Is it so farfetched to believe that DD ordered Snape in the same manner? > > If there had been no vow, and Snape > > killed Dumbledore, then I would be > > more in your camp. > > The vow in no way excuses Snape's treachery, not one bit! Nobody put a > gun to his head, he agreed to make it. > You missed the point I was trying to make. Without the vow and if Snape killed DD, then I would be more inclined to believe Snape to be truly evil. With the Vow, there is a question on whether he is evil or not. And true, no one put a gun to Snape's head - he turned back on his own, with no one forcing him to do so, to fight alongside DD to defeat Voldemort. Snape probably agreed to do anything DD asked him to do - that is probably why they fought in the forest - Snape did not like what was being asked of him. > > How do we know that Snape never told > > DD about Quirrell? > > I would think trying to murder a student would be grounds for > dismissal, or a least a pay cut, but Dumbledore did nothing except > leave Harry and Quirrell alone in the castle while he went off to > London. And in 6 books Dumbledore never once talks about the time > Quirrell tried to kill Harry at a Quidditch game. I don't think Snape > could have told him. Someone(sorry, forgot who) already brought this up and made the point, using cannon, that DD DID know about Quirrell thru Snape. Read up a few threads. So, Snape did talk about it to DD. > > > Sirius knew better as well, but he went anyway. > > Sirius was in no more danger than any other member of the Order when > they went to the Ministry, in fact most of them were injured it's just > that Sirius was the one injured the most and died. > And in War, people do die. It is a fact. I think the point I was trying to make, is that regardless if DD told Harry about the Prophecy or not, somewhere, at sometime, Sirius would act rashly and reckless - and would have died. JMO, of course, but Sirius wasn't really playing with a full deck - I love his character, don't get me wrong - but he was very flawed as well. colebiancardi From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Oct 9 21:28:11 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:28:11 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <43498317.6060004@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > The enormous contrast between Snape and Harry is Harry's inability to > sacrifice anyone for the good of the cause. Harry already refused to > allow the death of Peter Pettigrew, who became the one responsible > for the return of Voldemort. This might make Harry "good" and a hero > in the eyes of many, but his decision was obviously the wrong one in > lives cost as a result. How do you reconcile that Realpolitiker reading with the Dumbledore- stated (and thus probably authorially sanctioned) moral grounds on which Harry spared Peter's life? Dumbledore says, pretty flat out, that it was The Right Thing To Do, regardless of the outcome in later books. In a sense, killing Pettigrew is the *easy* thing to do-- gratifying the vengeance-instinct and all of that--while letting him live and remain an agent in play on the field is the hard, yet morally correct, thing to do. I don't see JKR going towards this 'ends justify the means' philosophy at all. Far too Slytherin, whose values may be occasionally appreciated but are certainly not glorified. That's not to say that there are not difficult choices and decisions to make about ends and means, but the emphases Rowling seems interested in are rather Stoic. One has responsibility for one's own actions/volition, but you can't control what other people do, even as a partial result of them. [This, for instance, is why in my estimation, Fred and George are not omg ebil!: what wrongs they've abetted in HBP were not rooted in a volition to do so. But that's a tangent.] Many a poster, in the past, has tried to read HP as akin to John LeCarre, with the same ethical morasses and similar solutions. I have to admit that I don't quite see it, but I do see a generally positive outcome for Harry's moral instinct in this situation. It's not real life, but since when has fiction ever been? -Nora dries her shoes out from yesterday's deluge From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 9 21:35:02 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:35:02 -0000 Subject: One and the one In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "foodiedb29" wrote: > > Hi all, > I just read on a site, that in the prophecy as written in the UK > edition, the word one is first written as One, with a capital, and > then the next time with a lowercase "o". So, if that is true, maybe > there are two ones. A One, and a one. Did that make any sense? Geoff: As written in my UK adult "library" edition, I find: 'But when Sybill Trelawney spoke, it was not in her usual ethereal, mystic voice but in the harsh, hoarse tones Harry had heard her use once before: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..." The slowly revolving Professor Trelawney sank back into the silver mass below and vanished.' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.741 UK edition) So both "one"s are lower case.... From muellem at bc.edu Sun Oct 9 21:45:08 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:45:08 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > > > > The enormous contrast between Snape and Harry is Harry's inability to > > sacrifice anyone for the good of the cause. Harry already refused to > > allow the death of Peter Pettigrew, who became the one responsible > > for the return of Voldemort. This might make Harry "good" and a hero > > in the eyes of many, but his decision was obviously the wrong one in > > lives cost as a result. > > How do you reconcile that Realpolitiker reading with the Dumbledore- > stated (and thus probably authorially sanctioned) moral grounds on > which Harry spared Peter's life? Dumbledore says, pretty flat out, > that it was The Right Thing To Do, regardless of the outcome in later > books. In a sense, killing Pettigrew is the *easy* thing to do-- > gratifying the vengeance-instinct and all of that--while letting him > live and remain an agent in play on the field is the hard, yet morally > correct, thing to do. I think that DD stated it was the right thing to do to spare Peter's life, because of the life debt that Peter now owes him. p 427 Am Ed PoA hardcover: DD speaks: "pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt....Wehn one wizard saves another wizard's life, if creates a certain bond between them....and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter". It comes down to this - DD told Harry he did the right thing, because of the action it created - a life debt - a wizard in Voldy's camp who is beholden to Harry. As DD stated, this is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable. This is Peter's role in book 7. > big old snip here.... > > Many a poster, in the past, has tried to read HP as akin to John > LeCarre, with the same ethical morasses and similar solutions. I have > to admit that I don't quite see it, but I do see a generally positive > outcome for Harry's moral instinct in this situation. It's not real > life, but since when has fiction ever been? > John LeCarre's "The Spy who came in from the Cold". It explains the real spy business, not the James Bond stuff that most people think of when they think of spys. People who are flawed, make mistakes, sometimes having to make choices that aren't easy. How a good person could do *bad things* and how a bad person could be on the *good side*. That is the book that I and others have been referring to as far as Snape's role. > -Nora dries her shoes out from yesterday's deluge > me too...I live in the NE and it is a miserable weekend. colebiancardi From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 9 22:30:16 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:30:16 EDT Subject: Harry IS Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141356 This is, perhaps, the reason that JKR wrote Snape as she did. I can think of no other character in the books who would be capable of making this kind of moral decision. The enormous contrast between Snape and Harry is Harry's inability to sacrifice anyone for the good of the cause. Harry already refused to allow the death of Peter Pettigrew, who became the one responsible for the return of Voldemort. This might make Harry "good" and a hero in the eyes of many, but his decision was obviously the wrong one in lives cost as a result. KJ Julie: Great post, though I do have a disagreement with what you write above. I don't think Harry's choice and Snape's choice in the two scenes are comparable. Killing Pettigrew, as things stand at *that* moment, accomplishes nothing good. It is simply killing for vengeance. The alternative is to take Pettigrew to the authorities to be tried and punished for his crimes. That he escaped because of Lupin's transformation and the ensuing turmoil could not be foreseen by Harry. OTOH, Snape's choice did have immediate consequences, and none of them benign. If he didn't choose to kill Dumbledore, then he is dead, and probably Harry and Draco, and Dumbledore also dies anyway. If Dumbledore was going to die anyway, then Snape's choice was the hard but right choice, the choice that saved the lives that could still be saved. But Harry's choice at the time was *also* the right one, even if more lives were lost in the future because of it. No one can predict the future (well, except Trelawny, maybe), so one can only make the best choice available at any given moment. Harry made the best choice he could, and I think time will prove that Snape also made the best choice he could. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Oct 9 22:55:37 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:55:37 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <002f01c5cd01$480cffc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141357 Sherry now: > First of all, we do not know that Dumbledore > was dying. We know he was sick, but we have no > *canon* to say he would not or could not recover. houyhnhnm: I didn't mean that Dumbledore was dying of either the ring horcrux curse or the poison/cave water. I meant that his situation on the tower was a fatal one. Unless you are suggesting that Dumbledore was faking his own helplessness, I can't imagine any way that he could have come down from the tower alive, regardless of what Snape did or did not do. Sherry: > After all, Dumbledore didn't die on two fumbled attempts of Draco's. > why didn't Snape keel over then? I'm only saying that we don't know > enough about how the vow works to know how it would have caused > Snape's death. Or when? houyhnhnm: Snape was not in Draco's confidence when Draco made the two clumsy attempts on Dumbledore's life. It was not in his power to "carry out the deed". We do know how the vow works. If you break it, "You die". Sherry: > your belief that Snape murdered Dumbledore for some > noble cause is just as likely to be fan fiction as your > idea that Snape committed murder at all is. We are simply > interpreting the canon we have in different ways. [...] > all of you who believe that Dumbledore's death was for > the good of everyone. houyhnhnm: I don't know who is saying Dumbledore's *death* was for the good of everyone. The argument I've seen, with which I agree, is that Dumbledore's death was inevitable. He could either die from Snape's AK or be killed by the DE's, possibly savaged by the werewolf. In the latter case, others could very well have died also, including Harry. I have never said that Snape killed Dumbledore "for some noble cause". Please do not put words in my mouth. His choice was the logical one to preserve the most lives. Sherry: What if it's proven that Snape did indeed murder Dumbledore for his own reasons? if you can say that the death of Dumbledore was for the greater good and calmly believe that, then if Snape is shown to be a murderer either for Voldemort's sake or his own, what should happen to him? Would you then also advocate for his death as just punishment? i do not. As I said in an earlier post on this subject, I am for life in all situations. Dumbledore should have lived. Snape should not be executed, if he did commit murder. houyhnhnm: Again, I'm not saying that Dumbledore's death was for the greater good. Once he arrived on the tower, Dumbledore's death was inevitable. He was a dead man one way or the other. Snape's action resulted in fewer people (including Harry) going down with him. Whether or not Snape's motives were contaminated by a desire to save his own skin, there is no way to know at this point. I'm not sure how it could be "proven", but if it turns out that Snape hated Dumbledore, wanted to kill him and save himself, then, yes, Snape is a bad man, but he still performed the right action in that particular situation even if it was for wrong reasons. As far as executing people goes, I don't believe in the death penalty myself and, apparently, neither does the WW (although they are remarkably blase about soul-sucking). From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 23:50:17 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:50:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: References: <002f01c5cd01$480cffc0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <700201d40510091650p1be081c5j7de6375e73b277c5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141358 On 10/9/05, justcarol67 wrote: > > Sherry wrote: > ... here's a hypothetical for all of you who believe that > Dumbledore's death was for the good of everyone. What if it's proven > that Snape did indeed murder Dumbledore for his own reasons? if you > can say that the death of Dumbledore was for the greater good and > calmly believe that, then if Snape is shown to be a murderer either > for Voldemort's sake or his own, what should happen to him? Would you > then also advocate for his death as just punishment? i do > > not. > Carol responds: > Okay, I'll play along even though you didn't accept my hypothetical > proposition and consider the possibility that *if* Snape had no choice > and was acting for the greater good he should be forgiven. (It was > only an "if.") > > Anyway, here goes: > > *If* Snape turns out to be just a murderer and a traitor who's been on > Voldemort's side all along, I'll burn my books. ...snipped... > *If* he's OFH! and killed Dumbledore for no other reason than to save > himself (and saved Draco only to prevent the UV from kicking in rather > than because he cared about him), then everything depends on whether > he redeems himself later. ...snipped... > But *if* he's Dumbledore's man, trapped into a terrible choice by the > UV and by Dumbledore's decision to fly to the tower rather than > remaining at the Three Broomsticks while Harry ran to Snape for help > (*that* IMO is Dumbledore's huge mistake), then I think his own > remorse will be sufficient punishment for all his misdeeds... > ...snipped... > Come on now, Sherry. *If* Snape was acting for the greater good when > he killed Dumbledore and *if* he really had no choice, wouldn't you > forgive him? It's only a hypothetical proposition, and I went along > with yours. . Kemper smiling as sweetly to Sherry: I agree with the consequences of every condition that Carol has addressed including the last which Sherry has avoided thus far. (Friendly wave) . Sherry also wrote: First of all, we do not know that Dumbledore was dying. We know he was sick, but we have no *canon* to say he would not or could not recover. . Kemper gives canon: Diary!Horcrux would have killed Ginny had the Chosen One not destroyed it. . Ring!Horcrux curse. It left Dumbledore's hand withered and Dumbledore suggested that his condition would have been worse (dead?) had he not gone to Healer!Snape. . I find it difficult to believe that any of the other Horcruxes are not protected with some sort of killing curse/potion, including the Locket!Horcrux. . But let's assume RAB changed the drink after he stole the locket and ask ourselves, Why wouldn't RAB attempt to kill the Dark Lord? It seems if he did change the potion, it would be to put an unexpected killing potion in its place. Either way, Dumbledore drank something that in all likelihood was designed to kill. . . Kemper, who also thinks Pippin's comments up-thread are quite poignant and which I look forward to Sherry's response as it has nothing to do with Snape. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Oct 10 00:19:15 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:19:15 -0000 Subject: Sectumsempra/DancingOnHisGrave/PickingOn/Hagrid/Risk/TrelawneySlyth/Forgive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141359 Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141127 : << "Harry was about to put his book away again when he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned 'For Enemies', that he had marked a few weeks previously. He had still not found out what it did..." (HBP "Sectumsempra" p.484 UK edition) Surely, this should have screamed out "Danger" at Harry if he had really thought about it because how can it have any use other than a dark purpose? >> I gather that Harry, like me, never studied Latin, but only picked up bits of word roots from dictionaries and so on. I saw 'cut' 'always' 'for enemies' and expected it to be a spell for turning two friends into enemies of each other -- something Severus probably would have liked to do to James and Sirius, or, later, to James and Lily. A Dark purpose, yes, but not one very useful for defending oneself in single combat. Why does << The very use of the "-sempra" suffix implies that this was meant as an attacking spell >> ? I can think of Good uses for 'always', as in charms for good health (or at least immunity from specified diseases) and charms for holding up a house like the Burrow and charms for protecting a place from malicious intruders. Ellyse wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141128 : << I wonder what Harry would have felt if Snape had dropped dead the next day. I'm pretty sure Harry wouldnt have whooped or cheered or anything of the sort. While he may not have shed tears or anything, he wouldnt have thrown any parties to celebrate. I think he would have had a complex tangle of emotions and one of the ingredients would have been pity. He would have been genuinely sorry Snape was dead. So I dont see why the same logic cant be applied to Snape. >> It's human nature to feel Shocked at an unexpected sudden death of someone you know, but Harry wouldn't have felt sorry Snape was dead -- well, maybe he would have, because *he* is such a saint, but I can assure you that *I* responded to news of the death of a particuarly detestible neighbor by saying "Good riddance", and that was *exactly* how I felt about it. (And I don't consider myself to be nastier than Snape.) a_svirn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141130 : << To pick on someone simply because they like something you don't is just as bad as picking on them because of their looks and loneliness. >> Even if the something they like is Naziism, al Quaeda, child pornography, or torturing small furry animals? Of course, picking on them won't change their bad beliefs, but neither will anything else. Steve bboyminn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141168 : << I have always said that Hagrid has more than enough practical experience to be a wizard with a wand, but that can only happen if the Ministry officially reverses the legal sanctions against him. >> Or if he moves to France to marry Mme. Maxime and be Beauxbatons's gamekeeper. The French Ministry of Magic hasn't convicted him of anything. Betsey Hp wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141239 : << Oh, and when does Hagrid become a trusted friend of James? I was under the impression that they didn't interact much. >> I believe that Hagrid was a trusted friend of James & Lily, given the Secret (in a note written by the Secret Keeper) so he could visit them while they were in hiding, with a friendship going back to James's and Lily's school days, but I admit that I have only limited canon support. Of course there is the bit in GoF when Hagrid hides in shame at being outed as half-giant and Dumbledore refers to the heaps of mail from parents who, remembering their friendships with Hagrid in their own schooldays, are demanding that DD keep him on the job despite that Skeeter cow's article. That shows that he had a habit of being friends with students -- our Trio is far from being his first student friends. Then there are all the things Hagrid says about James and Lily, starting with his first appearance in the first chapter of PS/SS: "S-s-sorry," sobbed Hagrid, taking out a large, spotted handkerchief and burying his face in it. "But I c-c-can't stand it -- Lily an' James dead -- an' poor little Harry off ter live with Muggles -" Next chapter: "Sorry," he said. "But it's that sad -- knew yer mum an' dad, an' nicer people yeh couldn't find -- anyway..." << Actually, Harry is not a huge risk taker when he doesn't have to be, IMO. He's just willing to take a risk if he thinks the risk is necessary. James, on the other hand, would take the risk just because it's there. >> Sirius, in a bad mood, said that James would have taken a risk just because risk is fun; we don't actually know that that is a true description of James. Harry quite famously broke rules by sneaking to Hogsmeade without a permission slip; he didn't *realize* that he was risking his life to an alleged lurking assassin, but he did realise that he was risking detention. I don't think that was the only time he broke a rule to get a pleasure he wanted, rather than out of a sense of necessity. Deborah wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141263 : << Come to think of it, what House could have suited the future Professor Trelawney? >> Slytherin. Her ambition was to be respected as a Seer, and she worked very hard and not all that ethically at it, until being fired by Umbridge and losing her acolytes (Parvati and Lavender) to Firenze drove her to drink. To me, Lockheart and Skeeter are two other Slytherin alumni. Both work hard and not all that ethically to achieve their ambitions. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141349 : << At any rate, I believe that Harry will have to forgive Snape in order to defeat Voldemort through love, and I don't see how that can happen if Snape is ESE! >> Forgive him, but still work to prevent him from harming innocent third parties. Feel nothing but pity for him, no hate, because of coming to understand how he reached adulthood so full of hate that he joined the Dark Side, and how he remained so blind that he stayed there. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 01:31:44 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:31:44 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141360 > Sherry now: > > > First of all, we do not know that Dumbledore > > was dying. We know he was sick, but we have no > > *canon* to say he would not or could not recover. > > houyhnhnm: > > I didn't mean that Dumbledore was dying of either the ring horcrux > curse or the poison/cave water. I meant that his situation on the > tower was a fatal one. Unless you are suggesting that Dumbledore was > faking his own helplessness, I can't imagine any way that he could > have come down from the tower alive, regardless of what Snape did or > did not do. Alla: Well, situation on the Tower COULD have been the fatal one for Albus , except there is a possibility that he did not know about the third provision of the UV ( I don't believe that it is ever established for sure that he did knew). Yes, he says to Harry that " I know more than you think" ( paraphrase), but Dumbledore could have been referring to two provisions of the UV, which Snape informed him about. As Siguine quite convincingly established in her Snape essay, when did Snape EVER in canon admits that he made a mistake? I think it is very believable assumption that his pride stopped him from informing DD about that third provision. So, the point I am trying to make that Dumbledore may have not known about the fatalism of the situation and called Snape for help, NOT to receive an Avada from him. The fact that Snape may have had no other choice, even if he felt that way, does not excuse him in my eyes. Of course, this is far from the worst scenarios I am imagining his storyline may go, because while he is guilty of saving his own neck, instead of dying for Dumbledore, this Snape also may honestly believe that the Light will benefit from him staying alive rather than Dumbledore. Of course to me in that scenario Snape also has to realise at the end that nothing excused him killing his mentor, not even the best motives, but again - he can turn out to be quite redemable in that scenario. > houyhnhnm: I'm not sure how > it could be "proven", but if it turns out that Snape hated Dumbledore, > wanted to kill him and save himself, then, yes, Snape is a bad man, > but he still performed the right action in that particular situation > even if it was for wrong reasons. Alla: I am still not getting why Dumbledore's death HAS to be inevitable? For all we know, DD could have given antidote, IF the potion was that bad and lived? Snape could have at least sent the message to other order members, stall DE and yes, die in process , maybe, in order to be sure that leader of the light has a chance to finish Harry's education, help him destroy other four horcruxes ( the fact that Dumbledore , the greatest wizard of all times was only able to destroy two is still telling me that Dumbledore would really like to stay alive since it would be MUCH harder for Harry to finish off FOUR of them. JMO, Alla. From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Oct 10 01:54:14 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 18:54:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <700201d40510091650p1be081c5j7de6375e73b277c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003701c5cd3d$85374c20$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141361 > ...snipped... > Come on now, Sherry. *If* Snape was acting for the greater good when > he killed Dumbledore and *if* he really had no choice, wouldn't you > forgive him? It's only a hypothetical proposition, and I went along > with yours. . Kemper smiling as sweetly to Sherry: I agree with the consequences of every condition that Carol has addressed including the last which Sherry has avoided thus far. (Friendly wave) . Sherry Sorry, i thought I made it clear. no. i do not forgive Snape. i do not believe the so called greater good demands killing Dumbledore. It's just not the way I think. Sorry, but Snape firmly with Voldemort, Draco saved from his own idiocy and all the rest, does not justify Dumbledore being killed. I just can't express it strongly enough. A soldier does not kill his own general. There's no greater good that can justify it. I would not forgive him for it, ever. murder is the ultimate sin, and taking another person's life, for *any* reason is the ultimate sin. not speaking religiously. So, no, i would not forgive Snape, because nothing would justify it to me. There could have been some other way. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 02:01:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:01:06 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141362 > Pippin: > We don't know whether Snape could be sure that Dumbledore was > beyond help, we don't know whether Snape killed Dumbledore or > only pretended to... but there probably wasn't any solution that would > save both Dumbledore and Draco. In those situations in real life, if, > say, there was only one operating room, or time to pull only one person > from the burning car, the child's life would get priority. Alla: Here is my hypothetical take on your hypothetical situation, Pippin. I am saying it, because I am not sure that there was no solution that could have been saved both Dumbledore and Draco. Granted, that solution may not have included Snape being alive, but I absolutely think that this is the price he should have paid for his idiocy. Anyways, back to your hypothetical IF Snape's ONLY motive of killing DD was to save Draco, then sure I can see mitigating circumstances in what he did, since caring for a child ( even if this child is Draco ;)) is a good thing, BUT I absolutely won't go beyond calling it mitigating circustances, I most definitely will not call Snape's actions heroic, etc. In that case I still want Snape to suffer - remorse, go to Azkaban for killing DD, but after he pays his dues, I guess he can live in peace. :-) I would not mind Dumbledore's host hunting him forever though. I think that Dumbledore gave Snape so many invaluable things, he helped him SO much, so many times, that Snape's loyalty should be to Dumbledore first and foremost ( I mean sure if Dumbledore's please meant "please kill me, kill me now" then Snape is loyal to DD, but that is one scenario which makes little sense to me). JMO, Alla From rh64643 at appstate.edu Sun Oct 9 18:19:53 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:19:53 -0000 Subject: Lucius Junius Brutus In-Reply-To: <20051007133752.38678.qmail@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141363 > sweety12783: > > It's very interesting that you mention this because I remember JKR telling us to look for patterns in the names. There is also another story that involves Lucius but this time is in the King Arthur Legends. King Arthur defeated an Emperor of Rome by the name of Lucius. So I think that JKR might have had multiply sources of inspiration for her characters. So maybe Arthur Weasley will defeat Lucius. Its very interesting that the rivalry between Mr. Weasley and Lucius Malfoy has been touched on a few times in the books. It would be a good (maybe justice) if Lucius was defeated by someone he considered a "blood traitor." > > truthbeauty 1 again I have never heard of that allusion, but it is very intriguing as well. I do believe that Rowling borrows from multiple mythologies, languages, and literatures. She seems to mix traits form several sources to create her characters. Honestly, before the 6th book, I probably wouldnt have seen anything in the Lucius Junius Brutus thing. But now that I thinnk we are supposed to see Draco in a slightly different light, it just makes one wonder. I like you idea because it would be soo satisfying to see Arthur get one up on Malfoy. We arent given much to like about Lucius, but at least we know that Draco and his mother seem to be willing to die for their loved ones. I just wonder if Lucius has the same moral fiber. truthbeauty1. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 02:13:22 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:13:22 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141364 > Alla: > > I am still not getting why Dumbledore's death HAS to be inevitable? > For all we know, DD could have given antidote, IF the potion was > that bad and lived? zgirnius: Noone is denying that is a possibility. What they are suggesting is that Fenrir and the other three Death Eaters would not have waited around for someone to bring an antidote. Dumbledore was *defenseless* for the moment because of the potion, so the four DEs could have finished him. Now, I'm going to guess your next objection..."But Snape was there, he could protect Dumbledore". Perhaps he is in fact skilled enough to hold off the other four Death Eaters until help arrives, in theory. But the problem is that Snape has made this pesky UV. As others upthread have pointed out, we don't know exactly how the death kicks in. I could see it not dropping Snape in his tracks while he is up there arguing with the DEs about next steps, now that it seems Draco is not up to carrying out the Dark Lord's orders. But I think it is a reasonable supposition that the moment he raises his wand in DD's defense, he dies. That is an unambiguous indication he is not going to keep his Vow. I would agree that Snape has some responsibility for the situation, especially if he knew what Draco's task was when he took the Vow. (I would also submit the possibility that *Snape* agrees with you. He certainly does not seem to me to be particularly pleased with the way events turn out in the end of the book...) But while he is at least partially responsible, it is not clear to me that a different course of action at that point would have produced any better results. From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Oct 10 02:36:49 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:36:49 -0700 Subject: Dumbledore or Snape Message-ID: <003801c5cd43$77c3c9f0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141365 I realize that i am not very good at trying to explain my strong gut reactions against any possible so called good reason for Snape killing Dumbledore. Let's just say to start, that I am incapable of imagining any good reason for one person to kill another person, especially when it is someone who has trusted you implicitly, in the face of the doubt of others, someone who has probably even loved you. But even in general, I can't imagine any circumstances in which I could kill another person, even if it was for the so-called greater good. But lest you think me just a sentimental old fool, I also can't imagine any circumstances in which Dumbledore would want Snape, of all people, to kill him. With the fact that Snape was a death eater at one time, and that he must have had to do some terrible things in those days, i cannot make myself believe that Dumbledore would expect him to kill again. Dumbledore, though saying death is the next great adventure, wouldn't embark on that adventure at the expense of another person. Snape's psyche could be very fragile, under the circumstances, not the person to ask to murder you. It could damage Snape irreparably to expect this of him. i can't see Dumbledore doing that. I think the words about the act of murder splitting the soul are there to help us to understand that Dumbledore would consider such an act a truly terrible thing. It really isn't about Dumbledore's eventual future, but more of what destruction it could do to Snape, someone that Dumbledore cares for and has worked hard to redeem from his past. It comes down to not forgiving Snape or not forgiving Dumbledore. If Dumbledore did expect Snape to commit that most horrible of deeds, then Dumbledore is most likely as evil as Voldemort, though in a different way. So, yes, I may be a sentimental old fool, but in a way, it's because of Snape's past, and Dumbledore's belief in his change of heart, that makes me incapable of believing Dumbledore would expect or allow Snape to kill him. It would be as bad a crime as Snape's actions. And as for the idea of murder ripping the soul, and was it really murder if it was for the "greater good", many soldiers come away from war with terrible psychological injuries because of what they've had to do. police officers have a tragically high suicide rate, because of the horrors they have to face. Even if it's only metaphorical, I believe murder, or taking a person's life for any reason, does damage a person severely. Only someone with no soul or conscience if you prefer, could do such a thing unscathed. Would Dumbledore inflict that on Snape who must already have damage to his psyche from his past? i just don't believe it. No greater good can be worth that. It's not the way I read Dumbledore, to think that he would stoop so low. Sherry From djklaugh at comcast.net Mon Oct 10 02:38:38 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:38:38 -0000 Subject: Lucius and Stan in Prison In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141366 (Snip) Valky: (Snip) I'd like to plot a hypothetical for it, if noone minds: (Snip... sadly to appease the list elves Valky's excellent and poetical fantasy got snipped - go upthread if you haven't already read it and appreciated it) That was fun but... Too much poetic license? Valky LOL that was wonderful Valky... poetic license well yes but canonically spot on! Sounds just like Scimgeour and the MOM would do... Now that he's on a roll Harry might also get the centaurs back on friendly terms with Hagrid and the WW. Oh yeah, and lets have Harry also improve the lot of House Elves everywhere by having the magical contract rewritten to say that they can wear regular clothing instead of tea towels or old rags, that they can (if they choose to) take a vacation each year, and that elf sons and daughters can attend Hogwarts and learn the proper use of a wand. Plus he can use what he looted from Scrimgeour's office to endow scholarships for house elves, goblins, giants, centaurs, and other intelligent magical creatures who would like to further their education. Deb (djklaugh) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 02:47:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:47:23 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141367 > zgirnius: > Noone is denying that is a possibility. What they are suggesting is > that Fenrir and the other three Death Eaters would not have waited > around for someone to bring an antidote. Dumbledore was *defenseless* > for the moment because of the potion, so the four DEs could have > finished him. ". Alla: Well, yes, but not simply because Snape was there, but because he came there and he could have given DD the antidote fast, thus making DD stronger, then indeed fight with DE or something. But while I of course read the other posts in the thread, I was specifically addressing Houyhnmmm's point, who ( the way I interpreted it and I am sorry if I interepreted it incorrectly that she was not suggesting that DD was dying either from ring curse or cave potion, but the situation on the Tower was fatal nevertheless because Dumbledore was helpless ( weakened from the Potion,etc.) And I am saying that if DD was helpless from potion but could recover from it, it increases Snape liability very significantly to me, because it would mean that " but for Snape actions" Dumbledore could have survived the Tower. Zgirnius: > > Now, I'm going to guess your next objection..."But Snape was there, > he could protect Dumbledore But I think it is a > reasonable supposition that the moment he raises his wand in DD's > defense, he dies. That is an unambiguous indication he is not going > to keep his Vow. Alla: Well, yes, of course it is a reasonable supposition, but again since we don't know the details of how UV magic works, except of course than you die if you break it, I think it also a reasonable assumption to make that if Snape does not flat out refuse to finish Draco's task, he may still live. The way I see it, Snape DID have options on the Tower. He could have use his Patronus for example and send emergency message to other Order members who were close enough. In the meanwhile, Snape may have stall for time or again start fighting , maybe somehow trying to fool the Vow, even if temporarily. Of course, in this scenario Snape eventually dies, since sooner or later the magic which underlines UV WILL recognise that Snape is not going to finish Draco's task, but I don't think that we know for sure that Snape did not have stalling options. Zgirnius: > I would agree that Snape has some responsibility for the situation, > especially if he knew what Draco's task was when he took the Vow. Alla: I know you do. :-) It is very enjoyable debating with you, because even though we do have some major differences when we evaluate Snape , we also have some major overlapping points in our views, so I can easily figure out where and why we start to differ. Zgirnius: (I > would also submit the possibility that *Snape* agrees with you. He > certainly does not seem to me to be particularly pleased with the way > events turn out in the end of the book...) Alla: LOL! I sure hope so that this was beginning of major "inner turmoil" for Snape. Zgirnius: But while he is at least > partially responsible, it is not clear to me that a different course > of action at that point would have produced any better results. > Alla: I can definitely see both possibilities. JMO, Alla. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 03:02:42 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 03:02:42 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141368 Kathryn Jones wrote: >> The enormous contrast between Snape and Harry is Harry's inability >> to sacrifice anyone for the good of the cause. Harry already >> refused to allow the death of Peter Pettigrew, who became the one >> responsible for the return of Voldemort. This might make >> Harry "good" and a hero in the eyes of many, but his decision was >> obviously the wrong one in lives cost as a result. zgirnius: There is certainly a nice contrast, which you point out, between the decision of Harry at the end of PoA and the decision of Snape at the end of HBP. But I'd hesitate to call Harry's decision "wrong" in this case. Harry, at the time he acted, had no way of knowing that his action would permit Pettigrew to go to Voldemort and facilitate V's return. I presume he imagined Pettigrew would be tried by the MoM and found guilty of the Muggle murders and then jailed in Azkaban in place of the (now cleared) Sirius. Snape, on the other hand. was in a position to clearly see the "good" consequences of his decision to kill Dumbledore. Nora wrote: > I don't see JKR going towards this 'ends justify the means' > philosophy at all. Far too Slytherin, whose values may be > occasionally appreciated but are certainly not glorified. > That's not to say that there are not difficult choices and > decisions to make about ends and means, but the emphases Rowling > seems interested in are rather Stoic. > One has responsibility for one's own actions/volition, but you > can't control what other people do, even as a partial result of > them. zgirnius: I agree that JKR would not push a "Slytherin" or "ends justify the means" philosophy in her books. But I think this may not preclude an explanation of the events on the tower in which it turns out that Snape was sincere in his "return" to Dumbledore, and has tried to act so as to further DD's cause. (So, Snape killed DD because DD was dying anyway, and this way Snape removes the DEs from Hogwarts, and protects Draco and Harry, all while keeping his cover with Voldemort.) Snape has been a sort of "grey" character all along, and (if the above interpretation is correct) Snape took a rather "grey" action on the tower. As long as in treating this event in Book 7 she makes it clear it was "grey", and not a shining model of moral action, I think it can work. I suspect we'll see plenty of less "shady" actions on behalf of the Good Guys in Book 7... zgirnius, wishing both of you a nicer weekend in the future! From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 04:04:48 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:04:48 -0000 Subject: Reasonable Doubt - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141369 Lupinlore wrote: > If Snape did indeed kill Dumbledore, > and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence saying he did not, Valky: :D Then I shall have to give you the basis for my reasonable doubt, shan't I. I previously wrote that of the four major lethal quantities affecting Dumbledore through HBP, ie Ring Curse, Locket Protections, Strange looking Avada Kedavra, and fall from a Tower, it is the last two that present the least likelihood of successfully kiling a wizard of Dumbledore's calibre. The one that deserves the first scrutiny, naturally, is the Avada Kedavra. It *is* the Killing Curse, hence it is the only one of the last three factors unambiguously given as deadly in canon. And for that reason, if Dumbledore had fallen, slumped, at the moment the curse touched his body with a blank, empty expression in his staring eyes, then it would be unequivocally decided that the Avada Kedavra was the cause of death. As it stands we have no such assurances. Dumbledore is thrown bodily from the tower and dies at some moment after the curse touches his body, with a peaceful expression and closed eyes. It is not *conclusively* Avada Kedavra that kills Dumbledore, this much can be said without a doubt. And that doubt gives reason to hypothesise alternative scenarios. To my mind there are three: 1. ESE/OFH Snape incanted a deliberate and intentional AK, with not enough magical power to kill Dumbledore immediately. 2. DDM Snape faked an Avada Kedavra. 3. Torn ESE/OFH/DDM Snape cast a half-heartedly real AK, his emotional hesitation rendering it ineffective. In none of these scenarios, do I see doubtless evidence that the spell cast from Snapes wand killed Dumbledore. So next to scrutinise is the fall from the tower. Dumbledore's phoenix can carry him, hence if Dumbledore was alive as he fell from the tower, he need not have hit the ground and died. There is also the question of the innate magic that kicks in when a wizard falls from a height (as per Neville being dropped out the window), and other such canon suggesting that wizards have superior resilience to physical injuries, making it even more likely that Dumbledore could survive a great fall than can be first supposed. I draw the conclusion that Dumbledore *may* have survived the fall, especially if he had made a concious effort to save himself. Or it may just as well have killed him as he was weak and possibly was rendered unconcious. In all, the fall is more likely to have killed him, given the evidence, than the Avada Kedavra, and yet there is still some reasonable doubt that it did without his concious effort to prevent Fawkes from saving him. Without a conclusive cause of death yet established by these two quantities, I turn to the potion in the cave. Investigation reveals a strong possibility that the potion was lethal and that it could be the cause of Dumbledores death. It is no more conclusive than the AK or the fall, but no less either. Dumbledore admits that he suspects the potion would eventually kill the drinker and he appears to be fading fast after drinking it. But for his own fighting spirit keeping him alive temporarily, we see evidence that he would be dead before reaching the Tower. Death by the effects of the potion is reasonably assumed to be able to occur at any time between DD completing his drinking of it, and the moment of impact with the ground below the tower. And finally the cursed potion is comparable to the ring curse Dumbledore tells us was capable of killing him earlier in the year ranking it higher on the scale of lethal items than both the AK and the fall from the tower. In all, it is no less likely to be the cause of death than the AK or the fall from the tower, hence reasonable doubt exists that Snape killed Dumbledore. Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 04:16:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:16:51 -0000 Subject: Percy's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141370 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > One thing I'd be curious to know is just _what_ Percy was supposed to > say to Ron in his letter..._given that Umbridge, or someone loyal > to/reporting to her, was almost certainly going to have a chance to > look the letter over before Ron ever saw it! Alla: Hmm, why do you think that Umbridge would definitely had a chance to look the letter over ? Are you saying that it would have happened before Persy sent the letter or that it would be interposed in Hogwarts? If you are arguing that it would be interposed in Hogwarts and Persy would foresaw such possibility then I would say that for him the best cause of action would be well, not to send ANY letter. Unless of course you are arguing that the letter contains some kind of secret message to Ron. If it is your argument, I would ask you to clarify what kind of message it contained, because I cannot figure out any. I would not exclude the possibility that Persy in his mind was looking out for Ron by telling him to stay away from Harry, but well, it does not make him to be any less of the git to me. Ericopen: > Ron, unfortunately, is Thick As An Asphalt Sandwich, and took the > letter at face value. I wonder what would have happened if Hermione > had had the opportunity to read it? Alla: Again, could you clarify, please? Are you saying that Hermione was supposed to figure out some kind of hidden message in the letter? > --Eric who, despite appearances, honestly doesn't dislike Ron and > doesn't understand why some people in the fandom seem to despise him. > Alla, : Personally I like Ron more than Hermione (Hermione is a very well written character, but I can like her only as part of the Trio) and cannot figure out massive dislike of Ron myself. JMO, Alla. From mad_maxime at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 04:30:07 2005 From: mad_maxime at hotmail.com (mad_maxime) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:30:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore or Snape In-Reply-To: <003801c5cd43$77c3c9f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141371 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sherry wrote: > Let's just say to start,that I am incapable of imagining any good > reason for one person to kill another person, especially when it is > someone who has trusted you implicitly, in the face of the doubt of > others, someone who has probably even loved you. But even in > general, I can't imagine any circumstances in which I could kill > another person, even if it was for the so-called greater good. Max responds: I don't believe anyone is saying that Snape killing Dumbledore is a good thing. I think Carol and others are simply making the point that Snape *could* kill Dumbledore and *still* be working on the side of the Order. Whether you're willing to forgive him or not is up to you, but it doesn't really have any bearing on the validity of that particular plot possibility. Sherry wrote: > But lest you think me just a sentimental old fool, I also can't > imagine any circumstances in which Dumbledore would want Snape, of > all people, to kill him. Max responds: The Dumbledore I know, love and respect would *gladly* give his life to protect the lives of others and the greater plan. It's what any 'General' worth his salt would do. And especially if he knew his death was inevitable, Dumbledore would *absolutely* not want others to sacrifice themselves needlessly. If Snape had not killed Dumbledore in the tower than Harry, Draco and Snape, himself, would have been placed in very grave danger. Four people could have very well died as opposed to one. Draco and Snape aside, I can think of no greater importance to the fate of the wizarding world than the protection of Harry. Dumbledore clearly passed the torch to him at the end of Chap. 26 'The Cave'. He is what is important to the wizarding world now, not Dumbledore. And as far as I can see, Snape's behavior in 'The Lightening Struck Tower' and 'Flight of the Prince' can be validly interpreted as the protection of Harry first and foremost. Max From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 05:10:43 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:10:43 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141372 "colebiancardi" wrote: > I think that DD stated it was the right > thing to do to spare Peter's life, because > of the life debt that Peter now owes him. I think we can add that remark to a long list of things Dumbledore was wrong about. If Harry had just done nothing and let them kill Peter then Voldemort would not have come back; and as for that "life debt" it sure didn't amount to much in the next book when Peter murdered Cedric and helped torture Harry. I think saving Peter's life was the single biggest mistake Harry made in all 6 books. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 05:37:30 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:37:30 -0000 Subject: Reasonable Doubt. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141373 "M.Clifford" wrote: > if Dumbledore had fallen, slumped, > at the moment the curse touched his > body with a blank, empty expression > in his staring eyes, then it would > be unequivocally decided that the > Avada Kedavra was the cause of death. I submit that only one time have we seen Avada Kedavra work like you describe above, at other times the victims had a look of terror on their face not a blank expression, on another occasion it left a physical mark on the intended victim, another time it did not, sometimes it causes absolutely no damage, another time it destroyed a house, yet another time it smashed a very large statue. I see nothing unusual in the way that curse worked that night on that tower. > Dumbledore is thrown bodily from the tower Well of course he is, JKR isn't about to let a very major character just close his eyes and die, he was after all in the highest tower at Hogwarts so he must fall dramatically off. Eggplant From mad_maxime at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 05:49:36 2005 From: mad_maxime at hotmail.com (mad_maxime) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:49:36 -0000 Subject: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > >"colebiancardi" wrote: > > I think that DD stated it was the right > > thing to do to spare Peter's life, because > > of the life debt that Peter now owes him. Eggplant wrote: > I think we can add that remark to a long list of things Dumbledore > was wrong about. If Harry had just done nothing and let them kill > Peter then Voldemort would not have come back; Max responds: Voldemort would have come back no matter what. Peter is not the only one in the wizarding world willing to chop his hand off. Eggplant wrote: > I think saving Peter's life was the single biggest mistake Harry > made in all 6 books. Max responds: Not so, imo. Having a DE in your debt seems like a real bonus to me. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 06:08:21 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:08:21 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141375 "zgirnius" wrote: > I would agree that Snape has some > responsibility for the situation, Some responsibility!? > especially if he knew what Draco's > task was when he took the Vow. If Snape realizes now that he made a mistake and he must have been suffering from a massive brain injury to agree to make that crazy vow and if he really is a good person as some have said then long before that night in the tower he should have walked away from Draco and his task broken his vow and died. Dumbledore shouldn't suffer for Snape's idiotic blonder, Snape should. But I don't think Snape is an idiot and I don't think he made a mistake, I think he knew exactly precisely what the ramifications of that vow were and I don't think he regrets it for one instant. Eggplant From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 06:29:31 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:29:31 -0000 Subject: Reasonable Doubt. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141376 > "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > if Dumbledore had fallen, slumped, > > at the moment the curse touched his > > body with a blank, empty expression > > in his staring eyes, then it would > > be unequivocally decided that the > > Avada Kedavra was the cause of death. > > I submit that only one time have we seen Avada Kedavra work like you > describe above, Valky: I counter submit that we have seen twice (or is it three times ?Frank Bryce?), four if you count Fawkes, that the effect of a successful Avada Kedavra on a living being is instantaneous death without embellishment. And that we have more than one account of a successful Avada Kedavra leaving the victim with an open-eyed tortured expression. eggplant: > at other times the victims had a look of terror on > their face not a blank expression, Valky: Yes I apologise, I worded that incorrectly, when I said blank and empty I had meant that to refer purely to the victims eyes, as per the description of Cedrics empty void in his eyes after he had been AK'ed. I agree that the facial expression of a victim has not been described as blank before. eggplant: > on another occasion it left a > physical mark on the intended victim, > another time it destroyed > a house, Valky: There are clearly stated but unspecified, additional and extremely unique factors involved in this case, hence it is incorrect to compare it. eggplant: > sometimes it causes absolutely no damage, yet another time it > smashed a very large statue. Valky: It causes no visible damage to the living cases we are shown (except that it destroys the life) but why should I compare this to its effect on an inanimate object? Valky previously: > > Dumbledore is thrown bodily from the tower eggplant: > Well of course he is, JKR isn't about to let a very major character > just close his eyes and die, he was after all in the highest tower > at Hogwarts so he must fall dramatically off. Valky: That is a fair statement, and I do appreciate the point of view. However, the fact remains that it equally is cause for reasonable doubt that Snape cast an effective canonical Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore. I dont see how either POV is more or less reasonable than the other. Valky From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 10 06:47:53 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:47:53 -0000 Subject: Sectumsempra/DancingOnHisGrave/PickingOn/Hagrid/Risk/TrelawneySlyth/Forgive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: Catlady: > > Why does << The very use of the "-sempra" suffix implies that this > was meant as an attacking spell >> ? I can think of Good uses for > 'always', as in charms for good health (or at least immunity from > specified diseases) and charms for holding up a house like the Burrow > and charms for protecting a place from malicious intruders. Geoff: The implication is because of what I wrote in the preceding paragraph, without which the point of my comment was missed. I wrote: This may have been a fairly harmless spell but its structure is of note. "Rictus" is a "grin" or "open mouth" and "sempra" is derived from "semper" meaning "always". "Sectumsempra" shares part of its name. "Sectum" is the supine of the verb "secto" - to cut and means "in order to cut". Add on "sempra" and you have a spell which apparently makes permanent cuts. It is fortunate that Snape was around otherwise I think it possible that Draco could have bled to death. It was certainly very stupid of Harry to use an untried spell without attempting to determine its meaning. The very use of the "-sempra" suffix implies that this was meant as an attacking spell and that is underlined by what is written in the Potions book... The comment about "sempra" has to be read in conjunction with my observation about "sectum" for the possible danger of this spell to be appreciated. I am a great Harry supporter but, like all of us, there are times when he shoots first and asks questions afterwards which, in this situation, was a very dangerous approach. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 08:58:16 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:58:16 -0000 Subject: Lucius Junius Brutus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141379 > truthbeauty 1: > We arent given much to like about Lucius, but at least we > know that Draco and his mother seem to be willing to die for their > loved ones. I just wonder if Lucius has the same moral fiber. > truthbeauty1. > I thought the only thing we know for sure is that Draco and his mother are willing to kill for their loved ones. I wonder whether it counts for moral fibre? In any case I think Lucius possesses the very same fibre in abundance. a_svirn From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 10 09:07:17 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:07:17 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141380 Alla: > > Here is my hypothetical take on your hypothetical situation, Pippin. > I am saying it, because I am not sure that there was no solution > that could have been saved both Dumbledore and Draco. Granted, that > solution may not have included Snape being alive, but I absolutely > think that this is the price he should have paid for his idiocy. > Pippin: Seems to me we need to get the variables nailed down here, because there is a vast opportunity to play fast and loose. To wit, Snape was an idiot to take the vow, except that some are arguing that there must have been a way to outwit it, in which case, he wouldn't have been an idiot to take it. ( And if he wanted to kill Dumbledore anyway, why should he have been twitchy about it?) Consider also that if he refused to take it, Bella and Narcissa would have had to kill him lest he reveal their treachery to his master. Surely it was more important to survive and warn Dumbledore that there was a plot than to die in a useless gesture of loyalty? Cut to the tower, where Dumbledore has to be so helpless that he can't defend himself from a fall, but not, in the style of Terry Pratchett let us be very clear about this, in any danger at all of actually dying. ;-) Then there are four Death Eaters, whom Snape would have had to defeat, assuming the vow didn't kill him immediately, before they could kill Dumbledore themselves or take Draco hostage. It's canon that the only time we ever saw Snape take on more than one wizard at once, he was disarmed and overpowered by three teenagers...but hey, it's fantasy, right? So given all that, I will accept the hypothesis that Snape could have saved both Dumbledore and Draco. It'd be pure parmesan if it'd been actually written that way, IMO, but I have no cause to complain since others apparently have a similar opinion of the scenarios that appeal to me. :-) Alla: > Anyways, back to your hypothetical IF Snape's ONLY motive of killing > DD was to save Draco, Pippin: Seeing as how Snape had vowed to watch over Draco and protect him on pain of death, I'd say that motive was pretty strong... Alla: then sure I can see mitigating circumstances > in what he did, since caring for a child ( even if this child is > Draco ;)) is a good thing, BUT I absolutely won't go beyond calling > it mitigating circustances, I most definitely will not call Snape's > actions heroic, etc. Pippin: So, um, Snape wasn't a hero for saving Harry from Quirrell's curse because that's what any responsible adult should do, but he should suffer remorse and go to Azkaban and Dumbledore's ghost should haunt him forever, because he should have let Draco die. Somehow, I don't think Dumbledore would want that. I used to wonder what Dumbledore would do if he ever found that his duty to the Order conflicted with his duty to Hogwarts -- we know now. A general would let the enemy's child die and call it collateral damage. Headmaster Dumbledore, as much in loco parentis to Draco as he is to Harry, would die for his kid, just as James and Lily did. The prodigal son isn't Snape or Harry -- it's Draco. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 10 10:10:38 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:10:38 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141381 > Alla: > > And I am saying that if DD was helpless from potion but could > recover from it, it increases Snape liability very significantly to > me, because it would mean that " but for Snape actions" Dumbledore > could have survived the Tower. Hickengruendler: I really don't think Dumbledore would have recovered from the Potion just like that. He grew weaker and weaker on the tower, not stronger. If, (and that's IMO a big if, since I still think it's a hint that JKR told us earlier in the book, that there are Potions for which no antidotes exist), there was a chance for Dumbledore to recover, than only through an antidote. And I think this really is Canon, otherwise there would be no sense for Dumbledore to ask for Snape, after they returned from the cave. Either he wanted Snape to kill him, because he knew the Potion was going to do it anyway, or he wanted Snape to save him through an antidote. He did not expect to simply recover from the Potion, and he has enough magical knowledge that I trust him here completely. (Not to mention that it wouldn't make any sense for Voldie to use such an comparatively harmless Potion). And it is a sad fact, that Snape didn't have an antidote with him, when he appeared on the Tower. Therefore what should he have told the Death Eaters? "Great that you caught him. Now please wait a moment. I have to fetch *erm* something. Please don't harm him. I mean ... not yet. I want to be there to see it as well." Doesn't seem very likely to me. And even more unlikely is the thought, that after his return with the antidote the DE's would simply let him through and letting him feed Dumbledore with some potion thingy, if it is much easier to kill him with an AK. Not to mention that we don't know if Snape would even be able to give the antidote to AD, without dropping dead while trying to do so. > Alla: > The way I see it, Snape DID have options on the Tower. He could have > use his Patronus for example and send emergency message to other > Order members who were close enough. Hickengruendler: And how should they make it on the tower? First of all, they were fighting Death Eaters. It probably wasn't that easy for them to get away. And even if, they couldn't break the barrier (Neville and Lupin tried and failed) and it's not that easy to summon a broom while fighting for your life. (Well, I assume ;-) ). But there's another reason, why I consider Snape to be on the good side, which has nothing to do with Snape but all with Dumbledore. I have already adressed this earlier, but haven't seen an answer to it. (Doesn't mean there wasn't any answer, I haven't read any Snape related post the last months). I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging for his life. And I refuse any exception that has him doing this. This is the man who said "Death is nothing but the next great adventure" and told Tom that it was his biggest mistake to think there's nothing more than death. Have him begging for his life in the minute, where it really is on stack, simply would negitate this. This is why I'm also not satisfied with OFH!Snape and your otherwise really great theory, that Snape simply thought killing Dumbledore would be the least bad solution (a theory, with which I otherwise very well might have agreed). It does not explain Dumbledore's reaction to me. Lupinlore talked about bad writing in other posts. Well, for me, the worst writing would be Dumbledore begging for his life, or even generally pleading in a whimpy voice to any villain (even if the idendity of that villain took him by surprise). You have seen how he spoke to Voldemort in OotP and to the other DE's on the tower. The reaction of the Dumbledore I knew, if he realized Snape had betrayed him, would be: "Well, Severus, I must admit I was mistaken in you. It's really a pity that you threw away your chance like that". (Not to mention that he already starts pleading, before Snape even raises his wand). Hickengruendler From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 10:20:58 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:20:58 -0000 Subject: Harry and James - only skin deep (was:Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141382 > Valky: It seems to me a bit impertinent of Mr Potter sr to > send his son to school with an Invisibility Cloak doesn't it > I concede and agree about Harry's grandparents being a bit soft on > James' little misdemeanours, they did give him advantages. Finwitch: Well, we don't know if James had it since his first day... Don't forget that somehow the three animaguses were not discovered by Dumbledore. I think it was for the purpose of helping poor Moony that James got the Cloak for. As for getting food out of the kitchen - guess they took it to the Shack after the Moon had set - poor Moony must have been hungry out there. Dumbledore would know James used the cloak to get food out of the kitchen. I doubt he was all THAT hungry. But I think his wolf of a friend WAS hungry. I also think that James&Sirius might have read trough the library to find out what books dealt with animagi, (meaning they got great grades, too) *bought* them and then disguised the book to look like something else. (rather than borrowing a library book...) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 11:02:26 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:02:26 -0000 Subject: Forbidden Education/ Identifying Enemies/Twins In-Reply-To: <00ee01c5ca16$6814c4d0$587e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141383 > Magpie: > > Well, of course not with poor Mark Evans. Dudley hasn't learned not to be a > bully at all, he's just smart enough not to pick on somebody who's got a > weapon and he's learned Harry has one. (He's defiant to Harry but doesn't > hit him.) Finwitch: Well, Dudley doesn't bully *Harry* any more. Which was what the twins were after, I suppose. Not to bully anyone wouldn't have been realistic. That Dudley has learned not to bully Harry (or any magical being) is a start, though. What do you think would happen once Dudley realises that he can't really tell who is a wizard and who isn't? If any person he meets might be a wizard or a witch able to turn him into a canary, give him a pig- tail... Hermione may well be the person to complete the Dudley-must-not- be-a-bully campaign. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 11:19:10 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:19:10 -0000 Subject: We have a department for that In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141384 Neri: -- it really wouldn't do for "The Chosen > One" to run around asking suspicious questions and looking for very > specific objects. -- > It thus appears that we are in desperate need of a convincing cover > for a Horcrux hunt. > > How convenient it is, then, that a new office was recently established > in the Ministry of Magic. Finwitch: Brilliant! I think Hermione comes up with the plan, Ron tells his Dad he needs the money - and as Arthur himself said in HBP, half his family owe their lives to Harry Potter. He wouldn't ask too many questions. Besides, it's entirely possible that at least one of Voldemort's Horcruxes may already have been confiscated. All sorts of cursed items like Sonnets of the Sorcerer, a book that burns your eyes out... I certainly hope Hermione will be *careful* here or she may end up with a cursed book or something... Oh, and another matter - Harry may send Dobby/Kreacher to find items in rich houses. No one pays a mind to a house-elf, after all... Oh, I wish I could read Book 7 already! Finwitch From jamess at climaxgroup.com Mon Oct 10 11:28:10 2005 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:28:10 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Forbidden Education/ Identifying Enemies/ Twins Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD7D@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 141385 Finwitch said.. What do you think would happen once Dudley realises that he can't really tell who is a wizard and who isn't? If any person he meets might be a wizard or a witch able to turn him into a canary, give him a pig- tail... Hermione may well be the person to complete the Dudley-must-not- be-a-bully campaign. James Says.... Come on! I agree with the premise but not the person. Ginny is the right person for that job. Nice little inncocent looking girl, ripe for a Dudley target. Little does ickle didykins realise that even the twins who so bested him don't mess with that little bundle of joy! :-) 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 jamess at climaxgroup.com Mon Oct 10 12:33:48 2005 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:33:48 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry is Snape Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD7E@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 141386 -- Claudia wrote And what about the scene where a young, strong, healthy boy forces an old, weak and injured man to drink something this old man clearly doesn't want to drink, is making him suffer terribly and probably even die? -- James writes Interesting way to look at it. If we ponder the idea that the potion was in fact going to kill Dumbledore then we have another twist to the DDM hypothesis. It can be argued that snape in AK'ing DD was serving the order, he was securing his position with LV (in order to help Harry later) and he was saving Draco from becoming a murderer. But what if there was a third reason? if DD was actually going to die from the potion then Snape has also saved Harry from the guilt associated with that. That kind of guilt is not something young Harry needs going into the final book. If snape does indeed turn out to be DDM, and the moments before were an agreement between DD and Snape on what had to happen then the sacrifice (while large) did have some significant returns. From jamess at climaxgroup.com Mon Oct 10 12:45:17 2005 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:45:17 +0100 Subject: The person to show Magic late in life: -- Was: More random musing s on HBP. Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD7F@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 141387 JKR made reference to somone showing magic late in life. We of course all assumed that this might be a primary character and set about guessing who it could be. I won't offer all the theories but Petunia was obviously a big one. However when reading HBP I thought the answer was there. The character Merop (spelling?)(Tom riddles mother) was considered to be a squib at home, but only when she left did she start exhibiting magic properly. Does anyone else think this explains JKR's hint? J, -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of ibchawz Sent: 07 October 2005 22:55 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More random musings on HBP. Valky wrote: > 1. Yet again Petunia has an odd reaction to the mention of Lily's > Blood Protection. While Vernon, clearly put out by what he percieves > to be the impudence of Dumbledore making plans for his Household, > Petunia OTOH, looks oddly flushed. ibchawz responds: I think Petunia is also worried that it runs out when Harry "comes of age" at age 17 instead of 18 in the Muggle world. We have received clues in other books that she knows more than she lets on. She knew about the dementors of Azkaban from the horrible boy was this James, Snape, or someone else she was referring to? In addition, we still need a good answer for the "Remember my Last" howler that she received. I think Petunia will play an important, even if small, role in Book 7. Will she be the one to perform magic late in life? Even if she doesn't, she could provide important information pertaining to the Horcrux hunt or the events at Godric's Hollow. Valky wrote: > 3. When Dumbledore is discussing the Prophecy with Harry, DD > unexpectedly insists that Harry share it with Hermione and Ron, > mentioning that it would be disservice to them if he kept it to > himself. ibchawz responds: Another reason that DD could have done this is that he realized how angry Harry was when Ron and Hermione would not share any info with Harry in the beginning of OoTP. He could have simply been trying to avoid strife between the trio to ensure that they were together for the road ahead. Valky wrote: > 4. Dumbledore makes another interesting demand of Harry before he > leaves, he tells Harry to keep his invisibilty clok t all times with > him, just in case. This is of course a form of protection for Harry in > the simplest sense, but I do wonder to what other end Dumbldore > imagines he cloak will be useful for, if Harry uses it 'wisely'. ibchawz responds: Could this be because DD already knew about Draco's task? If DD was expecting trouble at Hogwart's, he would want Harry to be prepared. It appears that DD was expecting trouble at Hogwart's since he had Order members guarding the place. ibchawz 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 c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Oct 10 12:57:53 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:57:53 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) - LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141388 OK, I'm going to try and give a succinct account of why Snape killed DD on the tower - Starting from the beginning of HBP. 1. DD sustains his injury while breaking the curse on the ring. He only survives due to his 'prodigous skill' AND Snape's intervention. My interpretation - That DD and Snape realise at this point just how serious the injury is. That it will prove fatal in the end. 2. Snape makes the Unbreakable Vow. My interpretation - Are DD and Snape aware of Draco's mission prior to this? Snape may have heard it on the Death Eater grapevine!! If so they may have planned for Snape to offer his support for Draco. IMO Snape needs to continually prove himself to Voldemort and the UV would be further evidence of this. At this point, it doesn't necessarily follow that Snape will have to kill DD - he just has to assist Draco. 3. Several references in the book refer to DD's weakening reflexes/power and his less than healthy appearance My interpretation - DD is dying! I also genuinely believe that DD would want to use his unavoidable death to somehow help defeat Voldemort. 4. DD is far more active than ever before in hunting down Voldemort's Horcruxes (even though he has suspected their existence since year 2) My interpretation - DD is doing as much as he can and helping Harry as much as he can before his unavoidable death 5. Hagrid overhears Snape & DD arguing. My interpretation - DD and Snape have discussed Draco's attempts to kill DD. DD indicates that Snape has given his word i.e. that Snape will finish off DD when he is close to death and therefore further improve his Death Eater standing/spare Draco from his ordeal. 6. DD and Harry argue over Snape My interpretaion - DD knows EXACTLY what Snape's motivations are since the two of them have secretly planned the outcome of DD's illness. 7. DD and Harry go to the cave My interpreation - Since the last Horcrux curse damaged DD profoundly, I think that he would have informed Snape that he was going after another. He would have told Snape that his help might be required on DD's return. They might even have discussed how another curse might affect an already sickened DD i.e. 'This could be the night, Severus!' 8. The White Tower. DD is killed by Severus Snape. My interpretation - DD gets progressively sicker during his presence at the white tower (paler looking/slips further down the wall). At this point, I don't think he can be saved. Flitwick meanwhile comes to Snape's office and informs him of the DE's arrival. Snape DOESN'T kill Flitwick, only stuns him. He realises that the plan to use Draco to kill DD is now in operation. He rushes to find DD. He enters the 'White Tower' scene knowing it has been prearranged that he kill DD, but when confronted with this, he pauses. DD pleads with Severus to carry out the plan, which Snape finally manages. 9. Snape & Harry fight during the flee from Hogwarts My interpretation - Severus continually blocks Harry's spells and instructs him on what he should be doing, but does not retaliate with spells of his own. He does react wildly to the accusation of 'coward', but I think it is because he has just had to kill the wizard he has most respect for to assist a boy he does not like who cannot even cast a spell without making it obvious which spell he is casting. I'm not sure DD ever convinced Snape that Harry really was up to the job of vanquishing Voldemort. Finally, from a literary standpoint, I simply don't see how Snape can be bad. JKR has spent six books setting up Voldemort as the epitomy of evil. Clearly the endpoint of the whole series is Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort. At this point, surely all our hatred needs to be focussed on Voldemort, otherwise the impact of this confrontation will be lessened. Now unless Voldemort kills Hermione and Ron in book 7, he will never be able to do something as evil as killing DD. Unless Snape turns out to be good, Voldemort becomes 'less evil' than Snape, which makes no sense to me whatsoever. Brothergib - who compares Snape with Darth Vader, both nasty pieces of work, who end up to be essentially good in the end. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Oct 10 13:04:16 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:04:16 -0000 Subject: Bill will die! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141389 In HBP, we are informed that Bill is a curse breaker. I think that Bill will attempt to break the curse on the locket. But since DD only survived due to his 'prodigous skill' and Snape's intervention, I think it may be curtains for poor old Bill!! Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Oct 10 13:04:19 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:04:19 -0000 Subject: Bill will die! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141390 In HBP, we are informed that Bill is a curse breaker. I think that Bill will attempt to break the curse on the locket. But since DD only survived due to his 'prodigous skill' and Snape's intervention, I think it may be curtains for poor old Bill!! Brothergib From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Oct 10 05:53:25 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:53:25 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: <003701c5cd3d$85374c20$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141391 > Sherry > > Sorry, i thought I made it clear. no. i do not forgive Snape. i do not > believe the so called greater good demands killing Dumbledore. It's just > not the way I think. Sorry, but Snape firmly with Voldemort, Draco saved > from his own idiocy and all the rest, does not justify Dumbledore being > killed. I just can't express it strongly enough. I'll have to solidly agree with Sherry, here. If Snape did indeed cast an AK that did indeed provide the most proximate cause of DD's death, there is no way to forgive him or ameliorate his crime. What he thought he was doing is irrelevant, and whether DD was dying from something else at the time is irrelevant. Once again, I'll have to say I've not seen one single shred of evidence that indicates this is not, in fact, the case. The effect of Snape's spell is perfectly in keeping with the scope of AKs we have seen (considering that Voldy used one that blew up a house), the condition of DD's body is perfectly in keeping with having been knocked off a tower (in a fantasy novel, in the real world he would have been smashed to a pulp) and there is absolutely nothing that is in evidence that mitigates against Snape being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry, but Snapey boy has done something that he just can't be forgiven for. Lupinlore From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Mon Oct 10 06:40:02 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (M. Thitathan) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 23:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore or Snape In-Reply-To: <003801c5cd43$77c3c9f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <20051010064002.98753.qmail@web26805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141392 Sherry Gomes wrote: "Let's just say to start, that I am incapable of imagining any good reason for one person to kill another person, especially when it is someone who has trusted you implicitly, in the face of the doubt of others, someone who has probably even loved you. But even in general, I can't imagine any circumstances in which I could kill another person, even if it was for the so-called greater good." CH3ed: What if the person in question is dying a prolonged horrible painful death? I realize there are people who are of the opinion that last-option euthanasia is not a ligitimate option, but shouldn't that be the patient's own choice? Those with the conviction that life regardless of its quality is preferable than death may choose to suffer (tho I think one really has to have had experience of prolonged contact with the terminally ills in hospices to really get a good idea of it. As an elf in Lord of the Rings says, 'Let those who have not seen night swear to walk in the dark (paraphrasing)'). However I don't think they should get to say that those who would choose to end their life and suffering on their own term are wrong. Whoever pays the price gets to choose the course, in my book. In this case if it turns out that DD did indeed ask Snape to kill him to protect others and for the greater cause, then I wouldn't hold grudge against Snape for DD's death (tho I still think him a git). CH3ed From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Mon Oct 10 05:43:23 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (M. Thitathan) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 22:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051010054323.89783.qmail@web26805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141393 colebiancardi wrote: "you are forgetting a little thing called the Unbreakable Vow that Snape took. He would have died before being able to do a darn thing to the Death Eaters - Draco had failed; the UV would have kicked in. If Snape turned his back and started to kill DE's instead of *killing* Dumbledore, Snape would have probably dropped dead in his tracks. And then what? - Snape dead, Harry can't move, DE's still in the tower. DE's would kill Dumbledore, who was weak & probably one or two minutes from death anyway. Harry would be released - would have, in a blind rage - just like the rage we saw him go after Snape - tried to take on the DE's up in the tower with a werewolf. What are the odds there? No Snape to protect Harry (yes! Snape protected Harry - he wouldn't let the other DE's curse Harry). So, tally it up - DD dead, Snape dead, Harry dead. End of story." CH3ed: I agree with colebiancardi's very well thought-through analysis. I also agree with Juli17 and Claudia that we really don't know enough back story to judge whether Snape murdered DD on the order of DD or LV. I am leaning on this being pre-arranged by DD; however, I must admit my confidence was quite shakened by JKR's interview on July 16 (excerpt below), which makes me wonder if JKR did really mean it when she had DD tell Harry that since DD is more clever than most wizards, his mistakes tend to be bigger. From Mugglenet.com: JK Rowling interview July 16, 2005. ES: How can someone so - JKR: Intelligent - ES: be so blind with regard to certain things? JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things. He?s always the one who gives, he?s always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that. ES: No, that was a good answer. MA: It's interesting about Dumbledore being lonely. JKR: I see him as isolated, and a few people have said to me rightly I think, that he is detached. My sister said to me in a moment of frustration, it was when Hagrid was shut up in his house after Rita Skeeter had published that he was a half-breed, and my sister said to me, ?Why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier, why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier?? I said he really had to let Hagrid stew for a while and see if he was going to come out of this on his own because if he had come out on his own he really would have been better. "Well he's too detached, he's too cold, it's like you,? she said!" [Laughter] By which she meant that where she would immediately rush in and I would maybe stand back a little bit and say, ?Let's wait and see if he can work this out.? I wouldn't leave him a week. I'd leave him maybe an afternoon. But she would chase him into the hut. CH3ed From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 14:54:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:54:06 -0000 Subject: When did Snape attempt to save the Potters? WAS: Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141394 > Alla wrote previously: > > Where else is is stated for a fact that Snape made an attempt to > > save Potters? Pretty please? > Saraquel: > Well there's an interesting quote from PoA (UK ed p265)where Snape > enters the room in the shrieking shack - > > Up thread I wrote something on this. I quoted the whole speech > because it needs to be seen in context. The implication to me, is > that Snape personally warned James that Sirius was a spy (that he > was mistaken is not the point here)and in Snape's eyes James ignored > the advice and ended up dead. I proposed that Snape sent a message, > probably via his patronus, telling the Potter's that Voldemort knew > where they were and was coming for them, and that their secret > keeper had blabbed. Snape would have thought that Sirius was the > secret keeper. > > OK, this is interpretation and not strictly stated in canon but I > think it's a pretty reasonable assumption. > Alla: Thanks, Saraquel and to everybody else who responded. I completely agree with you that it IS a reasonable assumption to make that Snape attempted to warn James about Sirius . What stops me from being completely on board with it is the mechanics of how he would have done it, I think. Carol downthread theorised that Snape could not have used his Patronus to warn James, because he was not an Order member and I actually agree with her. What I am not sure about is whether Snape could have used any other communication means as Carol suggested using owl, because he is supposed to be pressed for time when he issues this warning, no? I mean if he indeed attempted to warn James, wouldn't that have happened AFTER Voldemort cracked Peter, meaning that Voldemort already knew their location? I would think that Voldie would like to go there right away, personally ASAP. Another reason why I am not completely positive that this passage can be interpreted as advance warning is because I could also read it as Snape postfactum bitterness about James death as in Snape thinking "I've always known that Black cannot be trusted, Potter did not and now he paid for it" or something like that, but after James was already dead. Oh, another thought - did Snape even know that Sirius was supposed to be Potters' Secret Keeper? Because if he did not , it makes even less sense to me that he would have try to warn Potters that Secret Keeper blabbed. Although I guess that since Sirius offered as rationale for choosing Peter as secret keeper that everybody would expect him to be the one and come after him, it would have been easy enough for Snape to guess if he wanted to. So, again, thank you everybody and just to be sure this is the only quote that was being interpreted as Snape attempted to save Potters, right? JMO, Alla From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 10 15:11:41 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:11:41 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: <20051010054323.89783.qmail@web26805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141395 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M. Thitathan" wrote: > > CH3ed: > I agree with colebiancardi's very well thought-through analysis. I also agree with Juli17 and Claudia that we really don't know enough back story to judge whether Snape murdered DD on the order of DD or LV. I am leaning on this being pre-arranged by DD; however, I must admit my confidence was quite shakened by JKR's interview on July 16 (excerpt below), which makes me wonder if JKR did really mean it when she had DD tell Harry that since DD is more clever than most wizards, his mistakes tend to be bigger. > > From Mugglenet.com: JK Rowling interview July 16, 2005. > ES: How can someone so - > JKR: Intelligent - > ES: be so blind with regard to certain things? > JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things. He's always the one who gives, he's always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that. > ES: No, that was a good answer. > MA: It's interesting about Dumbledore being lonely. > JKR: I see him as isolated, and a few people have said to me rightly I think, that he is detached. My sister said to me in a moment of frustration, it was when Hagrid was shut up in his house after Rita Skeeter had published that he was a half-breed, and my sister said to me, "Why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier, why didn't Dumbledore go down earlier?" I said he really had to let Hagrid stew for a while and see if he was going to come out of this on his own because if he had come out on his own he really would have been better. "Well he's too detached, he's too cold, it's like you," she said!" [Laughter] By which she meant that where she would immediately rush in and I would maybe stand back a little bit and say, "Let's wait and see if he can work this out." I wouldn't leave him a week. I'd leave him maybe an afternoon. But she would chase him into the hut. > > > CH3ed > The one thing that I can glean from her interview, as she doesn't want to give too much away, is that there is someone else who is DD's confidante, his partner. she states that more will be revealed in book 7, so I am wondering if Snape was that confidante - afterall, we had that argument in the Forest between Snape & DD according to Hagrid. Why did they take it to the Forest, instead of DD's office? Not to be overheard by the portraits, I assume. The fact that Snape & DD argue about something that DD wants Snape to do tells me that Snape is DD's equal in a lot of things, not just a grunt. Grunts don't argue to their Leader like that. I believe that Snape knows *all* by now, the Horocruxs, the full Prophecy, everything. Just as she gave that big clue prior to book 4 - Watch Snape, there is more there than meets the eye(referring to his DE's days, and that he is a spy for DD), I think she has more to be revealed in book 7 about the different roles that members in the Order play. I can see Snape as the confidante, as he is the only one who is as skilled in Legilimency and Occlumency as DD and is more skilled than LV at this point. I doubt DD & Snape have that many secrets from each other. But they are both very secretative men towards the other members in the Order and even Harry. DD cannot tell Harry the full role Snape has at this point, as Harry is not skilled in Occlumency and Harry could easily betray Snape's role. DD purposely kept Harry away from himself in OotP because of that reason - Harry could betray DD to Voldemort, by accident of course. I remember her comment about Snape prior to book 4 and was wondering if Snape was the loyal servant of Volemort at that time. The graveyard scene where Voldemort tells the DE's that there is a loyal follower at Hogwarts - I thought, oh, no! It's Snape! But I was incorrect. That is the beauty of Rowling's books - she redirects the clues back & forth. It could be that she will not do this in book 7 - but why would she? She has a writing style and why would she change it now? There are still many who think Snape is evil, many who think Snape is evil but good, and many who just don't know. Can't wait for book 7!! colebiancardi (who cannot take full credit for the analysis on the Tower Scene. Many posters here have posted the same analysis, only more eloquently written) From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Oct 10 15:16:16 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:16:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore or Snape In-Reply-To: <20051010064002.98753.qmail@web26805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002e01c5cdad$9064d250$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141396 -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M. Thitathan Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 11:40 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore or Snape Sherry Gomes wrote: "Let's just say to start, that I am incapable of imagining any good reason for one person to kill another person, especially when it is someone who has trusted you implicitly, in the face of the doubt of others, someone who has probably even loved you. But even in general, I can't imagine any circumstances in which I could kill another person, even if it was for the so-called greater good." CH3ed: What if the person in question is dying a prolonged horrible painful death? I realize there are people who are of the opinion that last-option euthanasia is not a ligitimate option, but shouldn't that be the patient's own choice? Those with the conviction that life regardless of its quality is preferable than death may choose to suffer (tho I think one really has to have had experience of prolonged contact with the terminally ills in hospices to really get a good idea of it. As an elf in Lord of the Rings says, 'Let those who have not seen night swear to walk in the dark (paraphrasing)'). However I don't think they should get to say that those who would choose to end their life and suffering on their own term are wrong. Whoever pays the price gets to choose the course, in my book. In this case if it turns out that DD did indeed ask Snape to kill him to protect others and for the greater cause, then I wouldn't hold grudge against Snape for DD's death (tho I still think him a git). CH3ed Sherry now: I figured this topic would have to come up eventually. Yes, my father died of cancer, lymphoma that was scattered throughout his entire body. Yet, he did not want to die, and he fought to live, one more day, one more minute of life. He was in agony. If he had chosen to die, by his own hand, who could blame him? But he would not ever have asked one of his adult children, or his wife, or a sibling, to end his life. Also, as a child, when my rheumatologists and my eye doctors had to tell me the facts of life for the rest of my life, they impressed upon me the idea that where there's life there's hope. not that I go around dreaming of impossible cures, but I'd never consider having another person kill me to get me out of my misery. My dad wouldn't have asked one of us to kill him to stop his pain. I think what I so strongly object to, which nobody's objections have answered is that I do not believe Dumbledore would ask someone else to kill him. He would have to know the incredible burden of guilt that would lay on someone who loved him. a burden you could never get over. i am fundamentally against the idea of euthanasia, because it's a slippery slope, and there are people in the world who think that people like me are a drain on society and should be put out of the world's misery. But a person choosing to sacrifice their own life for the good of others is a different thing. But Dumbledore didn't need Snape to do that. He was already slipping down the tower. He could simply have let go and dropped I think. If he asked Snape or arranged with Snape to be killed by Snape's hand, I'm thinking he's possibly even more evil than Voldemort. Sherry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 15:25:45 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:25:45 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141397 eggplant wrote: > If Snape realizes now that he made a mistake and he must have been > suffering from a massive brain injury to agree to make that crazy vow > and if he really is a good person as some have said then long before > that night in the tower he should have walked away from Draco and his > task broken his vow and died. Dumbledore shouldn't suffer for Snape's > idiotic blonder, Snape should. zgirnius: Let us suppose for the sake of argument that Snape is "good", and did "suffer from a massive brain injury", since these appear to be the only hypotheses under which you are willing to discuss anything but a future Dark Lord Snape taking the Vow. OK, then he recovers from the "brain injury" and sees that this Vow is a very bad thing. Let us even suppose that he is willing to walk away from Draco and die, as you state he ought. Should he *really* do so, right from the start? Remember, if we are saying that Snape would be willing to walk away "long before the tower", then really, why should Snape do so earlier rather than later? He can die just as well when the situation comes to a crisis. In the meantime, he can continue to be of some use to Dumbledore. And he *is* of use to Dumbledore, he would really be hard to replace. Just in case you don't see the (to me) obvious value of a living Snape, the functions he performs for DD are: 1) DADA instructor. If yet another DADA instructor dies mysteriously mid-year, I think Hogwarts will get stuck with another incompetent Ministry appointee-who would want that job? Also, Snape is a highly competent practitioner of DADA, even if his teaching ability is a subject of much debate. 2) Dark Arts expert. It is likely that Snape saves the life of Katie Bell. Had Snape arranged to die at the outset, she would probably have died. Also, Snape probably realizes that whatever DD is up to this year, he may likely need Snape's services as DA expert/Healer again personally, as he did after beiong damaged by the Ring Horcrux's curse. 3) Spy. Certainly DD's most highly placed agent in Voldemort's camp. If he's dead, he is definitely not going to be ferreting out any more secrets. (Keep in mind, this is a hypothetical exercise in which Snape *is* working for the Good Guys...) By walking away at the start of the book, Snape would be walking away from other responsibilities he has to Dumbledore. In retrospect, we can see that this decision would have cost at least one innocent life. I would actually argue that Snape in deciding what to do could reasonably suppose that by leaving immediately he'd be endangering Dumbledore... Suppose that Draco had needed one more day to fix the Vanishing Cabinet. Then Snape would have been in a position to (again) save Dumbledore, if he were still alive. To me, if Snape is "good" and the Vow was a terrible mistake, the situation at the end is especially tragic. Snape finds himself in a position where he feels he must kill Dumbledore because it is the least horrible possible outcome for the others involved. (DD is going to die anyway, at the hands of the Death Eaters, Harry will be exposed to danger, as will Draco, etc., etc., etc., we've both been reading this thread...) We cannot reasonably say he should have seen the situation coming, because Dumbledore did not, even though he had information which Snape lacked. (Draco's glee in the ROR). eggplant wrote: > But I don't think Snape is an idiot and I don't think he made a > mistake, I think he knew exactly precisely what the ramifications of > that vow were and I don't think he regrets it for one instant. zgirnius: You could most certainly be right. It is just not how the events in Book 6 read to me. What we see of Snape at the end of the book does not suggest to me a person without regrets. But perhaps we will learn that Snape's pet bat died that same evening, or his favorite cauldron got melted down during some experiment, and his odd behavior will be made clear to me... ;-) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 15:30:35 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:30:35 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape. In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD7E@mimas> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141398 James Sharman wrote: > if DD was actually going to die > from the potion then Snape has also > saved Harry from the guilt associated > with that. The lethality or non-lethality of that cave potion is quite irrelevant in the matter of Snape's treachery. Snape had no way of knowing that there was a cave, or potion in the cave, or that Dumbledore visited the cave, or that he drank the potion in the cave, or that such a potion even existed. People keep saying Dumbledore was going to die anyway, well maybe and maybe not, but Snape couldn't know one way or the other by looking at him from across the room for two seconds. Eggplant From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 15:44:59 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:44:59 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141399 > Hickengruendler: > I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging > for his life. And I refuse any exception that has him doing this. > This is the man who said "Death is nothing but the next great > adventure" and told Tom that it was his biggest mistake to think > there's nothing more than death. Have him begging for his life in the > minute, where it really is on stack, simply would negitate this. This > is why I'm also not satisfied with OFH!Snape and your otherwise > really great theory, that Snape simply thought killing Dumbledore > would be the least bad solution (a theory, with which I otherwise > very well might have agreed). It does not explain Dumbledore's > reaction to me. Lupinlore talked about bad writing in other posts. > Well, for me, the worst writing would be Dumbledore begging for his > life, or even generally pleading in a whimpy voice to any villain > (even if the idendity of that villain took him by surprise). You have > seen how he spoke to Voldemort in OotP and to the other DE's on the > tower. The reaction of the Dumbledore I knew, if he realized Snape > had betrayed him, would be: "Well, Severus, I must admit I was > mistaken in you. It's really a pity that you threw away your chance > like that". (Not to mention that he already starts pleading, before > Snape even raises his wand). zgirnius: We do never learn what Dumbledore was pleading for. However, you seem to agree with the analysis presented for why Snape's action was the least bad solution. So, is it a stretch to suppose that Dumbledore might have made the same analysis? Before Snape shows up, he realizes he's a goner, he's terribly worried about what will happen to Harry (and also Draco) after he is killed, and then Snape shows up. Even if a conflicted/ambiguous/OFH Snape has not told Dumbledore of the UV, it is possible that DD (unlike some members of this list) does not believe Snape capable of defeating four Death Eaters while protecting a helpless DD. He sees in Snape's arrival a ray of hope for Harry and Draco, if only Snape can see and make the right move as well... From jamess at climaxgroup.com Mon Oct 10 15:46:15 2005 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:46:15 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry is Snape. Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD83@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 141400 In the tower scene, the book clearly describes a moment where Snape and DD look at each other. Snape we know is an accomplished Occulmens/Legimens. DD i strongly suspect is the same. There is no way we can know for sure that Snape didn't know all that had happened in the cave. For all we know the information about the poison passed between them in the first half second and they spent the rest of the time reminiscing about the good old days. -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of eggplant107 Sent: 10 October 2005 16:31 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry is Snape. James Sharman wrote: > if DD was actually going to die > from the potion then Snape has also > saved Harry from the guilt associated > with that. The lethality or non-lethality of that cave potion is quite irrelevant in the matter of Snape's treachery. Snape had no way of knowing that there was a cave, or potion in the cave, or that Dumbledore visited the cave, or that he drank the potion in the cave, or that such a potion even existed. People keep saying Dumbledore was going to die anyway, well maybe and maybe not, but Snape couldn't know one way or the other by looking at him from across the room for two seconds. Eggplant 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 rayheuer3 at aol.com Mon Oct 10 15:47:34 2005 From: rayheuer3 at aol.com (rayheuer3 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:47:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) Message-ID: <1c9.32c88af3.307be716@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141401 Alla (_dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com_ (mailto:dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com) ) writes: >I am still not getting why Dumbledore's death HAS to be inevitable? >For all we know, DD could have given antidote, IF the potion was >that bad and lived? In a larger, story-based sense, Dumbledore's death was inevitable. The near-omnipotent mentor must be removed from the picture in order for the student/hero to reach his own full potential. Three easy examples are Merlin, Gandalf, and Obi-Wan Kenobi, all of whom Dumbledore has been compared to. As to whether Dumbledore's death from the horcrux potion was inevitable, I doubt it. If the DE attack had not been that night, I have no doubt that Snape could have cured Dumbledore, at least partially. My biggest question is why it never occurred to Harry to help DD by "sticking a bezoar down his throat". -- Ray [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 16:02:53 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:02:53 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141402 "pippin_999" wrote: > if he refused to take it [the Vow] > Bella and Narcissa would > have had to kill him [Snape] I'd like to see them try! Snape would turn them both into dog food. > there are four Death Eaters, whom Snape > would have had to defeat No problem. > assuming the vow didn't kill him immediately If that vow complicates Snape's plans he'll receive no sympathy from me. It's like a drunk driver saying, you can't blame me for killing your children, I never would have done it if I was sober but I was drunk out of my mind so it's not my fault. > So, um, nape wasn't a hero for saving Harry > from Quirrell's curse because that's what > any responsible adult should do No, Snape wasn't a hero because he didn't save Harry because he valued life but because he had information almost nobody else had, that Harry was the only one who could kill Voldemort and Snape needed to use Harry if he wanted to be number one and rule the world as I think he does. And Snape is not a hero because he apparently never told Dumbledore that one of his teachers tried to murder a student. > The prodigal son isn't Snape or Harry--it's Draco. If your theory is correct then Dumbledore cared more for Draco than he did for Harry and Snape combined because he must know that even if Harry kills Voldemort and survives his job will not be over, he will not just play Quidditch for the rest of his life, his next target will be Snape and that bodes ill for both of them. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 16:16:10 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:16:10 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape. In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD83@mimas> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141403 James Sharman wrote: > There is no way we can know for sure > that Snape didn't know all that had > happened in the cave. Just a few minutes before even Dumbledore didn't know what was going to happen in that cave. > For all we know the information about > the poison passed between them in the > first half second and they spent the > rest of the time reminiscing about the > good old days. Unfair! If you can invent new magic on the fly that Rowling never even hinted at you can justify any plot no matter how ridiculous, but even then you can't make it work artistically. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 16:42:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:42:16 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141404 > Pippin: > Seems to me we need to get the variables nailed down here, because > there is a vast opportunity to play fast and loose. > To wit, Snape was an idiot to take the vow, except that some are > arguing that there must have been a way to outwit it, in which case, > he wouldn't have been an idiot to take it. ( And if he wanted to kill > Dumbledore anyway, why should he have been twitchy about it?) Alla: Erm... You are not referring to me arguing that UV can be outwitted, I hope? :-) Because I only argued that we don't know the mechanics of how fast the UV magic kicks in, basically how soon it will recognise that Snape indeed does not want to finish Dumbledore off while pretending doing something else. To wit - I have no doubt that Snape would eventually drop dead, I am just not sure when exactly it happens. Say, if he sends Patronus to Order members the second he walks on the Tower, while not doing or saying anything else,w hich would point out that he wants to protect DD, does it count as breaking the UV or not? I am not sure that it does. Pippin: > Consider also that if he refused to take it, Bella and Narcissa would > have had to kill him lest he reveal their treachery to his master. > Surely it was more important to survive and warn Dumbledore that > there was a plot than to die in a useless gesture of loyalty? Alla: Why is that? Narcissa is not betraying Voldemort, even though she is sort of goin against his orders,she is not saying that the task should be abandoned or anything like that, she just wants Snape to help out , so to speak. Would you argue then that Bella should kill Narcissa first and foremost, since she does not want her to tell the story in the first place? I think that Snape would have been able to come out smelling like a rose , had he been able to stop poor hysterical Narcissa from talking, actually, but I don't think that Voldie would have been that upset by her talking in any event. JMO, of course, > Pippin: > So, um, Snape wasn't a hero for saving Harry from Quirrell's > curse because that's what any responsible adult should do, but > he should suffer remorse and go to Azkaban and Dumbledore's > ghost should haunt him forever, because he should have let > Draco die. Somehow, I don't think Dumbledore would want that. Alla: Erm... No, Pippin. Snape should go to Azkaban, because I don't think that taking the UV in the first place was the action of the responsible adult. THAT, IMO was lead to events on the Tower and I can see no corcumstances under which taking the UV was the right choice to make. That is why I CAN see some mitigating circumstances for the Tower, as in Snape being trapped by his own idiocy, but I cannot see Snape being a Heri on the Tower at all. Again, just me. > Alla writes: > > >I am still not getting why Dumbledore's death HAS to be inevitable? Ray: > > In a larger, story-based sense, Dumbledore's death was inevitable. The > near-omnipotent mentor must be removed from the picture in order for the > student/hero to reach his own full potential. Alla: Yes, I realise that, "hero journey formula", etc. In that sense Dumbledore's death WAS inevitable, although I share Lupinlore's sentiments in that aspect. I wish JKR would step away from the formulas a bit and ledt Dumbledore's live, NOT to do Harry's job, but to provide him with some support. Somehow I think that the story could have been not less interesting if Dumbledore'[s character was still there. But in any event I was NOT talking about that sense at all, just about Dumbledore's death as dictated by plot development. Ray: > As to whether Dumbledore's death from the horcrux potion was inevitable, I > doubt it. If the DE attack had not been that night, I have no doubt that > Snape could have cured Dumbledore, at least partially. My biggest question is > why it never occurred to Harry to help DD by "sticking a bezoar down his > throat". Alla: Yes, absolutely. This is what I think as well. I don't think that it is a given that the potion was deadly or at least without antidote. And it is a GREAT point about bezoar. :-) I guess Harry just did not realise that potion was THAT bad in the first place. I also wonder why Snape did not bring some bezoar with him, but that brings me to point made by Eggplant Colebiancardi: > The one thing that I can glean from her interview, as she doesn't want > to give too much away, is that there is someone else who is DD's > confidante, his partner. she states that more will be revealed in > book 7, so I am wondering if Snape was that confidante - afterall, we > had that argument in the Forest between Snape & DD according to > Hagrid. Alla: OK, I am REALLY curious now. You read this interview as if Dumbledore HAS a confidante? Could you please point to me where she says so? In the quote which had been brought UP (IMO, anyways), she says that Dumbledore's intelligence and wisdon isolated him and he never ever had a confidante. That is one of the strongest reasons why I don't believe in Snape and DD conspiring all year long, because JKR states that he had no confidantes. James Sharman: > > For all we know the information about > > the poison passed between them in the > > first half second and they spent the > > rest of the time reminiscing about the > > good old days. Eggplant: > Unfair! If you can invent new magic on the fly that Rowling never even > hinted at you can justify any plot no matter how ridiculous, but even > then you can't make it work artistically. Alla: I completely agree with Eggplant. Snape makes a specific point to say during Occlumency lessons that Legilimency is NOT just a mind reading, something more complicated. You can see memories, emotions, "Snape looked back at him for a moment and then said contemptuously. "Surely even you could have worked that out by now, Potter? The Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency-" "What's that?Sir? "It is the ability to extract feelings and emotions from another person's mind-" 'He can read minds?" said Harry quickly, his worst fears confirmed. "You have no subtlety, Potter" said Snape his dark eyes gliterinng. "You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such lamentable potion maker" - OOP, paperback, p.530. I don't remember anything in canon pointing out that you can converse telepathically using Legilimency. JMO, Alla. Are you sure you want to send this message? From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Mon Oct 10 15:18:00 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:18:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141405 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > But there's another reason, why I consider Snape to be on the good > side, which has nothing to do with Snape but all with Dumbledore. I > have already adressed this earlier, but haven't seen an answer to it. > (Doesn't mean there wasn't any answer, I haven't read any Snape > related post the last months). I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging > for his life. And I refuse any exception that has him doing this. > This is the man who said "Death is nothing but the next great > adventure" and told Tom that it was his biggest mistake to think > there's nothing more than death. Have him begging for his life in the > minute, where it really is on stack, simply would negitate this. I find that this (Dumbledore's pleading) is the bit of canon which does not fit into either of the main theories. It is grossly off-character for Dumbledore to beg for his own life. It is equally off-character for Dumbledore to ask Snape to kill him with an AK (for whatever reason: it shatters the soul). I find it also extremely unlikely that the pleading refered to something unrelated. To me there is only one way out: Snape did not kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore was begging for Snape to *pretend* to kill him by saying "Avada Kedavra" and casting a different spell to knock Dumbledore out of the tower: I think all the non-verbal spell thread was there so that JKR could come up with this without cheating. The ring, potion and cave water killed Dumbledore. In other words, Dumbledore was begging for Snape to take the blame for a crime of which he was innocent, and this is something which fits Dumbledore's character perfectly well. It also explains the hatred and revulsion in Snape's face. This theory also creates the opportunity for the a dialogue near the end, when the lie is no longer necessary, along the lines of: Harry: "Snape, you killed Dumbledore!" Snape: "No, Potter. You did." Harry is, of course, innocent of murder, but this creates interesting possibilities. Back to lurking... Nicolau From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Mon Oct 10 15:35:40 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:35:40 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141406 Eggplant: People keep saying Dumbledore was going to die > anyway, well maybe and maybe not, but Snape couldn't know one way or > the other by looking at him from across the room for two seconds. There is ample canon that both Dumbledore and Snape are superb legilimens: they could be communicating in that way without any of the others (including Harry and therefore us) knowing what they were "saying". Nicolau From crypticamoeba at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 14:45:31 2005 From: crypticamoeba at gmail.com (crypticamoeba) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:45:31 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore or Snape In-Reply-To: <20051010064002.98753.qmail@web26805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141407 Sherry Gomes wrote: "Let's just say to start, that I am incapable of imagining any good reason for one person to kill another person, especially when it is someone who has trusted you implicitly, in the face of the doubt of others, someone who has probably even loved you. But even in general, I can't imagine any circumstances in which I could kill another person, even if it was for the so-called greater good." I think that concerning the motive of Severus that your emotion is exactly what we need to look at to determine where JKR will take the story. Considering the target audience, 10-15 years old; I cannot imagine a way to explain to a 12 year old that yes Snape killed DD but it is ok because DD was (Dying, Cursed, Asking him to). Any way you cut it, it will sound flat on that level. All of Rowlings writing has maintain an accessibility to that age group and I cannot imagine it changing. Yes, we can often pick up on a second meaning or a more profound message, but the underline event is simple. The only way I can imagine explaining why Snape killing DD is good to a 12 year old is if somehow DD come back, (Pulls a Obi-Wan or Gandalf). You could tell a child that it was ok cause DD knew he could still help Harry and was working with Snape. But without that I think that Snape is beyond salvation. Crypticamoeba From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 10 17:17:19 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:17:19 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > Colebiancardi: > > The one thing that I can glean from her interview, as she doesn't > want > > to give too much away, is that there is someone else who is DD's > > confidante, his partner. she states that more will be revealed in > > book 7, so I am wondering if Snape was that confidante - afterall, > we > > had that argument in the Forest between Snape & DD according to > > Hagrid. > > > > > Alla: > > OK, I am REALLY curious now. You read this interview as if > Dumbledore HAS a confidante? Could you please point to me where she > says so? In the quote which had been brought UP (IMO, anyways), she > says that Dumbledore's intelligence and wisdon isolated him and he > never ever had a confidante. That is one of the strongest reasons > why I don't believe in Snape and DD conspiring all year long, > because JKR states that he had no confidantes. > It doesn't. I stated that what I gleaned from it - which translates into my opinion, not canon. However to requote the passage: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things. He's always the one who gives, he's always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that. end of Rowling's comment me again: Some of Rowling's statements, I took to be questions on her part - such as he(dd) has none on his part. and the fact she started out stating " Well, there is information on that to come, in seven." and we all know what THAT means - something, clues that have been given in the first 6 books, that points to perhaps DD has a confidente. And her last statement in the same paragraph - 'You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that.' She cannot tell us now, because that would give away too much in book 7 - just like she cannot address Snape and where his true loyalities lie. Just like she cannot tell us what Snape's patronus is - it would give away too much. The argument in the Forest between Snape & DD and what we are privy to tells, to me at least, that there is some partnership between Snape & DD - that they are probably more equals than one thinks. Again, if Snape is just a grunt, why would he question DD's authority? Again, I have no canon - just bits & pieces like the rest of you. It is just my opinion. One in which I could be totally wrong on, but we all love to glean thru Rowling's statements & try to fit them into the books. It doesn't bod well for Harry if DD never had a confidente, IMHO. Whether it is Snape or not, it a moot point. However, I can't think of anyone else in the WW that fits the bill - who has the backstory - who knows what the heck is really going on. Snape knows about horocruxes - after all, he did save DD's life with the ring. And as I stated before, Snape & DD are extremely skilled in Legilimency - I doubt they have too many secrets from each other at this point & time. > > > James Sharman: > > > For all we know the information about > > > the poison passed between them in the > > > first half second and they spent the > > > rest of the time reminiscing about the > > > good old days. > > Eggplant: > > Unfair! If you can invent new magic on the fly that Rowling never > even > > hinted at you can justify any plot no matter how ridiculous, but > even > > then you can't make it work artistically. > > > Alla: > > I completely agree with Eggplant. Snape makes a specific point to > say during Occlumency lessons that Legilimency is NOT just a mind > reading, something more complicated. You can see memories, emotions, > > "Snape looked back at him for a moment and then said > contemptuously. "Surely even you could have worked that out by now, > Potter? The Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency-" > "What's that?Sir? > "It is the ability to extract feelings and emotions from another > person's mind-" > 'He can read minds?" said Harry quickly, his worst fears confirmed. > "You have no subtlety, Potter" said Snape his dark eyes > gliterinng. "You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of > the shortcomings that makes you such lamentable potion maker" - OOP, > paperback, p.530. > > I don't remember anything in canon pointing out that you can > converse telepathically using Legilimency. Perhaps - BUT even Ron calls in mind-reading. I don't think this is *new magic* or anything slipped in under the door. It is taking it a step further, but it isn't something unexpected, IMHO. I didn't expect, nor do I, that with Legilimency you can carry on boring conversations with one another without speaking, but you can, as Snape tells us, extract feelings & emotions from someone else's mind - if DD is projecting that he wants Snape to save Draco & Harry on the tower and there is only that one opinion available to him, that is not so farfetched. Also, TimeTurners could be thought as unfair & a bit of a cop-out in PoA, as we were not introduced to them until near the end of the book. According to Rowling, book 6 is the first half of a bigger book - book 7 is the second half. So, it is not *unfair* to introduce a new concept in the middle of a book, if we are looking at book 6 & 7 as one book, and not two separate books. colebiancardi From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 17:42:07 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:42:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore or Snape In-Reply-To: <002e01c5cdad$9064d250$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141409 Sherry: > But a person > choosing to sacrifice their own life for the good of others is a different > thing. But Dumbledore didn't need Snape to do that. He was already > slipping down the tower. He could simply have let go and dropped I think. > If he asked Snape or arranged with Snape to be killed by Snape's hand, I'm > thinking he's possibly even more evil than Voldemort. Ceridwen: Dumbledore wasn't clinging to the outside of the tower wall, from the way I read it, he was within the tower walls or crenilations (?), leaning against them and slipping down to the floor. He was getting farther and farther from the way over the walls as he slipped down. Had he allowed himself to drop, he would only have ended up prone at Draco's feet. He was growing weaker and weaker, probably from the cave potion (and, possibliy, also from the little water he ingested when Harry threw it on him), and whether he could have been saved at some point before this or not, he was apparently growing closer to death. Witness the way his skin got whiter. At this point, he couldn't have offed himself if he'd made a monumental effort, at least not from the way he was sliding down. And, he had been disarmed. At that point, we don't know. The book doesn't tell us. We do know that both Dumbledore and Snape are accomplished in Legilimency, so we might wonder if there was some communication between them. We do know that Dumbledore would not beg for his life. We do know that Harry is petrified to the wall and invisible at this point, and we discover after the fact, that the spell releases after Dumbledore, its caster, is dead. We can speculate about what will happen to Harry, who is prone to acting bravely without assessing the odds, if he is released into a nest of DEs and one werewolf. We can speculate that Dumbledore would have died, or would have been killed by the DEs on the tower or by Greyback, had Snape not done it, and that Draco may have been harmed or killed, and that Harry probably would have been killed, and that the DEs inside Hogwarts would have remained to inflict more injury and possibly kill someone, if Snape hadn't told them to get out. I think these speculations are reasonable since we have no canon either way. And, we know this is a wartime situation, which is different than peacetime. So we should adjust our viewpoints accordingly. Still, it will all only be speculation until canon proves only one right. BTW, I agree with you on the slippery slope argument regarding euthanasia. IMO, it's a case by case decision, and should only be according to the will of the intended future deceased. In the instance of Dumbledore, to bring it back to HBP, I do think it was his choice to die at that point, for a variety of reasons which overwhelmingly convinced him that this was the proper choice. He just couldn't do it for himself. And, I do think Snape may have resented being used in this capacity in the event that it become necessary, based on the argument Hagrid overheard in the forest. As you said, and I completely agree, it is a horrible burden. I also agree that there are too many people who think the infirm or differently abled should be euthanized, to 'put the world out of its misery'. I have a special needs child, and I've had people tell me that about him. I am very critical about euthanasia arguments, both for and against. It is indeed a slippery slope! Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 18:32:45 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:32:45 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141410 James Sharman wrote: > > For all we know the information about > > the poison passed between them in the > > first half second and they spent the > > rest of the time reminiscing about the > > good old days. Eggplant wrote: > Unfair! If you can invent new magic on the fly that Rowling never even > hinted at you can justify any plot no matter how ridiculous, but even > then you can't make it work artistically. zgirnius now: I quote from Chapter 24, HBP (this is on P. 524 in the US edition): Harry knew what Snape was going to do and he had never been able to prevent it.... The bathroom seemed to shimmer before his eyes; he struggled to block out all thought, but try as he might, the Half-Blood Prince's copy of *Advanced Potion-Making* swam hazily to the forefront of his mind. And then he was staring at Snape again, in the midst of the wrecked, soaked bathroom. He stared into Snape's black eyes, hoping against hope that Snape had not seen what he feared, but - "Bring me your schoolbag", said Snape softly, "and all of your schoolbooks. *All* of them. Bring them to me here. Now!" zgirnius again: I would consider this to be strong indication of the possibilities of Legilimency, and of Snape's capabilities in that area-he did nothing apparent in this scene. No incantations, wand movements, etc. He just looked at Harry. In what follows, I supply a parallel retelling of the events on the Astronomy tower, by a third person narrator who, unlike Harry, knows what Snape is thinking and tells us. In it I suppose only the ability by Snape to perceive images in the forefront of the mind of an individual not practicing Occlumency. Now, the relevant scene from HBP, Chapter 27 (starting p. 595, US edition): But someone else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly. "Severus..." The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. My narrator: But Dumbledore had also spoken Snape's name, quite softly. "Severus..." What did he want to tell me, Snape wondered? Back to the book: Snape said nothing, but walked forward and pushed Malfoy roughly out of the way. The three Death Eaters fell back without a word. Even the werewolf seemed cowed. The narrator continues: Snape strode wordlessly towards Dumbledore. As he approached Draco, reaching out to Dumbledore with his Legilimency, a dreadful image appeared clearly in the forefront of Dumbledore's mind: he lay, his shoulders supported by young Potter, who was offering Dumbledore a crystal goblet full of a glowing green potion. Snape could see nearby the now almost empty basin from which the potion had come. Dumbledore's grey color and labored breathing told the tale of the Dark and dangerous nature of this potion. Beyond, dimly visible in the gloom, an Inferius broke the murky surface of the lake. Snape, disturbed by this vision, stopped and pushed Malfoy roughly aside. And back to the book: Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. "Severus...please..." The narration continues: As Snape pushed Malfoy aside, a new and even more horrific image replaced the scene with the potion. Struck by a jet of green light, Dumbledore was lifted over the ramparts of the Astronomy Tower and dropped out of sight, while Snape, wand still raised, looked on. Snape's face twisted with revulsion at this suggestion, and hatred of himself for having taken that cursed Vow with Narcissa. Dumbledore spoke again. "Severus...please..." Suddenly, the horrible vision or Dumbledore's murder was replaced by a memory, and one Snape immediately recognized. It was from that fateful night, when he had come to Dumbledore full of remorse for having told the Prophecy to Voldemort. He saw himself, a young man scarcely out of Hogwarts, once again promise to Dumbledore that he would do anything, *anything* Dumbledore required of him, to make amends for his crimes. The book and narrator together, now: Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore. "Avada Kedavra!" zgirnius: I'm not saying this is what happened. Rather, my point is that nothing supposed by me here is inconsistent with the magic of Legilimency as we have seen it practiced by Snape earlier in this very same book. The overall clarity of the first two images would be a consequence of the fact that Dumbledore very much *wants* Snape to see what he is thinking, where Harry, though he has no clue how to do this, was trying to keep his thoughts *from* Snape. Also, while the first image especially takes several lines to describe, it is not a "video". It is a snapshot, a single image that captures a moment in time with all of the relevant details, thus it can be transmitted instantaneously. (What the potion looked like, that DD drank all or almost all of it, that it was having serious ill effects, that the place where it was located is clearly the product of some serious Dark Magic, as there are Inferi swimming around it, and finally that almost certainly the second broom was for Harry, since he has accompanied DD on this adventure.) The third and final image does not need to be very detailed to work, as it merely serves to evoke Snape's own independent memory of the event in question. I am of course rather making up the mamory from whole cloth- but something like it happened based on Dumbledore's own account. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 10 19:11:15 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:11:15 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141411 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > Seems to me we need to get the variables nailed down here, because > > there is a vast opportunity to play fast and loose. > > To wit, Snape was an idiot to take the vow, except that some are > > arguing that there must have been a way to outwit it, in which > case, > > he wouldn't have been an idiot to take it. ( And if he wanted to > kill > > Dumbledore anyway, why should he have been twitchy about it?) > > Alla: > > Erm... You are not referring to me arguing that UV can be outwitted, > I hope? :-) Because I only argued that we don't know the mechanics > of how fast the UV magic kicks in, basically how soon it will > recognise that Snape indeed does not want to finish Dumbledore off > while pretending doing something else. Pippin: If he sends a patronus it will be visible to the DE's, which would be kind of a giveaway, don't you think? What will they think he's doing, ordering out for pizza? The patronus does not move at the speed of light -- it will have to travel down the tower, tell the Order how to get through the barrier, and then they will still have to fight their way past the DE's downstairs who are trying to stop them, leave Ginny and Neville undefended and climb up the tower. In all this time, the vow is too stupid to realize it's been broken? > Pippin: > > Consider also that if he refused to take it, Bella and Narcissa > would have had to kill him lest he reveal their treachery to his master. Surely it was more important to survive and warn Dumbledore that there was a plot than to die in a useless gesture of loyalty? > > Alla: > > Why is that? Narcissa is not betraying Voldemort, Pippin: "had I not been in on the secret, Narcissa, you would have been guilty of great treachery to the Dark Lord." --HBP ch2 Snape's willingness to take the vow is Bella's and Narcissa's only proof that he isn't stringing them along. Without it, they dare not leave him alive. Alla: Would you argue then that Bella should kill Narcissa first and foremost, since she does not want her to tell the story in the first place? Pippin: But that would not have provided Bella with what she wanted most -- proof that Snape was a traitor. Narcissa was the bait. It's canon that Narcissa says that Voldemort had ordered her to speak to no one. Bella would gladly sacrifice both her sister and Snape to win her way back into the Dark Lord's favor with proof of Snape's treachery. If Snape had stopped Narcissa from talking then he would not have learned that the plan involved Draco. Granted this information didn't do Dumbledore much good since no one figured out that Draco was going to smuggle Death Eaters into the castle, but that is hardly Snape's fault. > Alla: > > Yes, absolutely. This is what I think as well. I don't think that it > is a given that the potion was deadly or at least without antidote. > And it is a GREAT point about bezoar. :-) I guess Harry just did not > realise that potion was THAT bad in the first place. I also wonder > why Snape did not bring some bezoar with him, but that brings me to > point made by Eggplant Pippin: Surely Voldemort knows all about bezoars, and wouldn't use a poison that could be cured by one? The poison could even have been worse than death in Dumbledore's eyes -- what if it had unicorn blood in it? > > Alla: > > I completely agree with Eggplant. Snape makes a specific point to > say during Occlumency lessons that Legilimency is NOT just a mind > reading, something more complicated. You can see memories, emotions, > I don't remember anything in canon pointing out that you can > converse telepathically using Legilimency. Pippin: This has become conventional wisdom apparently, but it's flat wrong. Harry saw and heard complete dialogues via legilimency, real time, on at least four occasions: twice between Wormtail and Voldemort, once between Voldemort and Rookwood, and lastly an entirely invented conversation between Voldemort and Sirius that Voldemort was able to consciously and puposefully convey to Harry's mind. Dumbledore knew about all that by the end of OOP-- do you think he'd be unable to pull off the same trick once he knew it was possible? Snape, of course, need only be good enough at legilimency to receive the message-- he does not have to be able to send one by the same means. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 20:05:17 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:05:17 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141412 "colebiancardi" wrote: > even Ron calls in mind-reading. And Ron is hardly the voice of authority on the subject, or any other for that matter. And Rowling who is the ultimate voice of authority in the Potter universe goes to some pains to explain that Legilimency is NOT mind reading. For Dumbledore to mentally explain to Snape everything that happened in the cave in a fraction of a second with nobody else hearing would not only be new magic but also a ham fisted plot invention that would make the reader feel cheated. > TimeTurners could be thought as unfair > & a bit of a cop-out in PoA It's Rowling's book not ours, she has the right to invent new magic especially if it works artistically, and Time Turners work. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 10 20:46:27 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:46:27 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141413 "zgirnius" wrote: > if we are saying that Snape would > be willing to walk away "long before > the tower", then really, why should > Snape do so earlier rather than later? Because after making that vow Snape was a ticking time bomb and if he didn't walk away and die soon he might weaken and never do so, and indeed Snape never did walk away and die, Dumbledore died instead and for that I can never forgive Snape and neither can Harry. > To me, if Snape is "good" and the Vow > was a terrible mistake, the situation > at the end is especially tragic. If your theory is correct then Snape is not a tragic hero, he is a comic villain. The classic tragic hero is a man of great virtue and one flaw that leads to his downfall. The flaw can be many things, too much ambition, too little ambition, jealousy, hair trigger temper, but one thing it can not be is incredible stupidly because that would just makes people laugh not cry. The Snape you describe is no more tragic than Wile E. Coyote when he gets an anvil dropped on his head by the Road Runner. Eggplant From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Oct 10 21:16:47 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:16:47 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore or Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141414 In a message dated 10/10/2005 1:07:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, crypticamoeba at gmail.com writes: Considering the target audience, 10-15 years old; I cannot imagine a way to explain to a 12 year old that yes Snape killed DD but it is ok because DD was (Dying, Cursed, Asking him to). Any way you cut it, it will sound flat on that level. All of Rowlings writing has maintain an accessibility to that age group and I cannot imagine it changing. ------------------------- Sherrie here: And yet my 12-year-old and two 13-year-old nephews (cousins, not brothers) each independently came up with the idea on their own (I finished the book first, and refused to discuss it with them - I won't spoil it for the kids!). The 12-year-old was actually the one who used the phrase "dead man walking" to describe Dumbledore - and one of the 13-year-olds flat out said, "Aunt Sherrie, Snape didn't kill Dumbledore - Harry did, with that stuff from the cave. Snape just stopped the DEs from getting him." Now granted, I'm their aunt, but I don't think any of my nieces or nephews are prodigies (well, maybe two of them, but none of these three! ). Nor are they exposed to much different stimuli than other kids their age - though I'll admit that the 12-year-old probably heard the "dead man walking" term from his father, who's a correction officer. Still, they had no trouble grasping the concept of the coup de grace, without any help or prompting from adults. Sherrie (who thinks Dumbledore would agree with Hancock that "There are times when a corps commander's life does not count.") "Some kid a hundred years from now is going to get interested in the Civil War and want to see these places. He's going to go down there and be standing in a parking lot. I'm fighting for that kid." - Brian Pohanka, 1990 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Oct 10 22:45:09 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:45:09 -0000 Subject: Bill will die! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141415 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > In HBP, we are informed that Bill is a curse breaker. > > I think that Bill will attempt to break the curse on the locket. But > since DD only survived due to his 'prodigous skill' and Snape's > intervention, I think it may be curtains for poor old Bill!! > Actually, we've known that since the first chapter of PoA. The same news article that "outed" Scabbers to Sirius also stated that "A delighted Mr. Weasley told the Daily Prophet, "We will be spending the gold on a summer holiday in Egypt, where our eldest son, Bill, works as a curse breaker for Gringotts Wizarding Bank." Also, since Bill has already had a near-death experience in Book Six - and has lost his good looks to boot - I think it unlikley that JKR will place him in "double jeopardy." - CMC From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 10 23:31:03 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:31:03 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141416 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > even Ron calls in mind-reading. > > And Ron is hardly the voice of authority on the subject, or any other > for that matter. And Rowling who is the ultimate voice of authority in > the Potter universe goes to some pains to explain that Legilimency is > NOT mind reading. For Dumbledore to mentally explain to Snape > everything that happened in the cave in a fraction of a second with > nobody else hearing would not only be new magic but also a ham fisted > plot invention that would make the reader feel cheated. > Please re-read my post - I didn't say DD mentailly explained anything - I stated and I quote from my post: "I didn't expect, nor do I, that with Legilimency you can carry on boring conversations with one another without speaking, but you can, as Snape tells us, extract feelings & emotions from someone else's mind - if DD is projecting that he wants Snape to save Draco & Harry on the tower and there is only that one opinion available to him, that is not so farfetched." where does it say in my passage that they were having a mental conversation - I used the extract feelings & emotions and that DD could be projecting. Nothing unusual about that at all. We've seen it before - Harry describes Snape extracting the memory of his Potions book in the bathroom scene, for example. > > TimeTurners could be thought as unfair > > & a bit of a cop-out in PoA > > It's Rowling's book not ours, she has the right to invent new magic > especially if it works artistically, and Time Turners work. > yep - it is Rowling's book and if she has decided to invent new magic, then she can. And it isn't new - Pippin in post 141411 has found canon for it mental conversations thru out the WW: Pippin stated: "Pippin: This has become conventional wisdom apparently, but it's flat wrong. Harry saw and heard complete dialogues via legilimency, real time, on at least four occasions: twice between Wormtail and Voldemort, once between Voldemort and Rookwood, and lastly an entirely invented conversation between Voldemort and Sirius that Voldemort was able to consciously and puposefully convey to Harry's mind. Dumbledore knew about all that by the end of OOP-- do you think he'd be unable to pull off the same trick once he knew it was possible? Snape, of course, need only be good enough at legilimency to receive the message-- he does not have to be able to send one by the same means." end of Pippin's great post. Thanks for finding that cannon! So, it has worked before, it is cannon and it works artistically, as no one had problems with those scenes(at least I cannot find any issues with them on this board). Now, you may feel cheated by this, but others feel it is an important plot device and furthers the *proof* that there is more to the eye, or in this case, Harry's POV, on what happened that night up in the tower. It is not far-fetched at all to see that this could have happened. Nor is it disappointing to me, nor is it a cheesy device. colebiancardi From ch3ed at yahoo.fr Mon Oct 10 07:58:33 2005 From: ch3ed at yahoo.fr (M. Thitathan) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: We have a department for that In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051010075833.21345.qmail@web26807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141417 nkafkafi wrote: "How convenient it is, then, that a new office was recently established in the Ministry of Magic. This one is called the Office for the Detection and Confiscation of Counterfeit Defensive Spells and Protective Objects. Sounds like just the thing, isn't it? This office, while conveniently a side one and far from the center of attention, employs no less than ten workers, who spend long hours(frequently until after midnight) searching and confiscating cursed Sneakoscops, fake potions, Metamorph-medals and that sort of knick-knack. They were even known to raid a DE's house merely on the ground of some undisclosed "confidential tip-off". It probably wouldn't raise a single eyebrow if they were after some magic lockets or cups. How lucky, then, that Harry is in very good terms with the head of this office (who is, in case you haven't caught up yet, one Arthur Weasley). I wonder if 17 years old wizards can get a temporary job in the Ministry while school is closed down for the war?" CH3ed: Nice catch Neri!!I think you're on to JKR there. I'd love to see Arthur Weasley in action (and mentoring Harry in his quest along the way). Guess they should start with Dung, ay? I hope he hadn't made off with that locket that nobody could open from Grimmauld Place yet. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 00:22:46 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:22:46 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > end of Pippin's great post. Thanks for finding that cannon! So, it > has worked before, it is cannon and it works artistically, as no one > had problems with those scenes (at least I cannot find any issues > with them on this board). All hands to starboard, fire those cannons! The problem with this is, of course, that Harry has an explicitly exceptional connection with Voldemort. All of these situations may involve Legilimency, but there's this complicating factor, and no 'control group' to set these things against. Ergo, it is impossible to say that any other character could be privy to the things in the same manner as Harry has. -Nora leans towards the mysterious connection with Voldemort, which Dumbledore extolls as one of Harry's unique weapons, as being the controlling factor in all of Pippin's 'canonical' assertions, not Legilimency per se From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 00:27:16 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:27:16 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141419 Sherry: > Sorry, but Snape firmly with Voldemort, Draco saved > > from his own idiocy and all the rest, does not justify Dumbledore > > being killed. I just can't express it strongly enough. > > > Lupinlore: > I'll have to solidly agree with Sherry, here. If Snape did indeed > cast an AK that did indeed provide the most proximate cause of DD's > death, there is no way to forgive him or ameliorate his crime. Valky: Sherry, I am sure would know that on this, I also agree. To utterly clarify my position, since I am going to be defending it, I am of the mind that if Snape shot a calculated successful Avada Kedvra at Dumbledore in order to kill him, it can nought be justified by any extenuating circumstance, not even triage (although Pippin's/Carols triage proposition is as close to convincing as it gets). This is the way I believe it works in JKR's world, a triage situation IMO would not end this way in these books. I am confident that Dumbledore would have means to survive that, I am with Alla, Sherry, eggplant, Lupinlore camp there. OTOH, the precise cause of Dumbledore's death is not established conclusively in the text. There *are* three (or four) possible causes presented. From a purely objective stance two (or three) of them are not the cause and one is. *And* none of the three most likely causes stand alone as perpetrated against Dumbledore without his enabling. IOW, there is no objective evidence of a cold-blooded murder. Hence any further investigation should not assume there was one. Objectively, the evidence *does* present an assisted suicide, but a profile of Dumbledore strikes that to the bottom of the list, where it belongs. Lupinlore: > What he thought he was doing is irrelevant, and whether DD was dying > from something else at the time is irrelevant. Valky: Once you assume that a cold blooded murder has occurred, I agree these things are irrelevant. However, I fail to see how it can be narrowed down to murder before these things are considered, I request a demonstration of how that is done objectively. > Lupinlore: > Once again, I'll have to say I've not seen one single shred of > evidence that indicates this is not, in fact, the case. The effect > of Snape's spell is perfectly in keeping with the scope of AKs we > have seen (considering that Voldy used one that blew up a house), Valky: The house blew up in the instance of a rebounded AK, I don't recall the witness saying that the AK in the tower rebounded. And I absolutely disagree that the witness testimony is in keeping with the scope of known AK effects on living beings that do not rebound. As it stands (I have investigated) I have so far counted five *demonstrated* Avada Kedavra's performed on living breathing beings in the the books. The Fox. Fell down dead. The Spider. Instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead Fawkes. Swallowed the Avada Kedvara and burst instantly into flames. (the typical death of a Phoenix) Cedric Diggory. Fell dead. Frank Bryce. Crumpled, dead before he hit the floor. This is FIVE cases, which must statistically count for *something* with the skeptics (come on!) and in every one there is the very same effect. Instant death in its most basic and unornamented sense. Blasting, aerial spectaculars and midair suspension are *not* in keeping with the scope of Avada Kedavra performed on a living being. We don't even have enough evidence to say Snape killed Dumbledore lets get that out in the open. Valky From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 01:03:21 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:03:21 -0000 Subject: Snape, Dumbledore, and Madam Rosmerta (Was: Trial of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141420 Alla wrote: > > I only argued that we don't know the mechanics of how fast the UV magic kicks in, basically how soon it will recognise that Snape indeed does not want to finish Dumbledore off while pretending doing something else. > To wit - I have no doubt that Snape would eventually drop dead, I am just not sure when exactly it happens. Say, if he sends Patronus to Order members the second he walks on the Tower, while not doing or saying anything else,w hich would point out that he wants to protect DD, does it count as breaking the UV or not? I am not sure that it does. Carol responds: I agree that we don't know the mechanics of the UV, only that if you break it, you die (the only canon we have). But it wouldn't matter in that case whether the UV acted or not because the Death Eaters would have killed him. And in any case, as has been pointed out, he couldn't have summoned the Order members anyway as the passage up the stairs was blocked. Alla wrote: > > Snape should go to Azkaban, because I don't think that taking the UV in the first place was the action of the responsible adult. THAT, IMO was lead to events on the Tower and I can see no circumstances under which taking the UV was the right choice to make. That is why I CAN see some mitigating circumstances for the Tower, as in Snape being trapped by his own idiocy, but I cannot see Snape being a Heri on the Tower at all. Again, just me. Carol responds: I'm a bit confused. The UV can be viewed as mitigating circumstances, but Snape should be sent to Azkaban for his irrresponsibility in taking it? We actually don't know that Snape was being irresponsible (or idiotic) since don't know how much he knew about Draco's task when he took the Unbreakable Vow or why he took it. Clearly he did not anticipate the last provision, at least. (I happen to think that the DADA curse was shaping the entire course of events, including even the timing of Draco's success in repairing the cabinet to coincide with Dumbledore's trip to the cave, but I won't argue that here.) But surely people shouldn't go to Azkaban for irresponsible decisions or lapses in judgment or "idiocy." If that's the case, then Scrimgeour is justified in arresting Stan Shunpike. But I agree with you on the mitigating circumstances. Whatever Snape's reasons for taking the vow, it clearly restricted his choices on the tower--making him in some sense his own victim. It certainly did not operate to his advantage. Almost anything he did to help DD could and probably would have resulted in his immediate death--and various posters, including me, have already discussed infinitum what the consequences of his death might have been, so I won't inflict that on you yet again. BTW, arguing that he's trapped by his own error in making the vow (a point I think you actually agree with) is not the same as arguing that he's a hero on the tower (or rather, that he chose the lesser of two evils, which is what we're actually arguing). The vow itself simply gives him the choice (if it can be called a choice) between breaking the vow and dying or saving himself and Draco by killing Dumbledore. Or rather, it limits his choices to those two terrible options. It would be quite simple if by dying he could save Dumbledore, or better yet, Dumbledore and Draco. There would be no decision to make. The choice would be clearcut, whether he was good or evil/OFH!. But the situation on the tower is more complex than that. For one thing, as the UV is set up, he can't save both Dumbledore and Draco. He must choose one or the other. And if Dumbledore is dying or will be killed regardless, he can't save Dumbledore at all. So the choice becomes to die *with* Dumbledore or kill Dumbledore himself. Snape must choose, but he must base his decision on the consequences of his choice: What will happen to the others if he allows the vow to kill him? Will any good come from his death, or will it result in greater harm than his survival? And if his survival can only be assured by killing the man who has been his mentor, can that be the right choice? Only if greater good will come from killing Dumbledore than from dying himself. He has only a very short time to make his decision, and surely if he were ESE! or OFH! he would make it immediately, but he does not make it until *after* he has met Dumbledore's eyes. What is right and what is easy have never been less clear, and Snape, though he quickly takes matters in hand and gets both Draco and the DEs from the tower, seems tortured by his own choice. The pain he suffers when Harry calls him a coward and tells Snape to kill him is not physical. It is the anguish of a tortured soul. (No one is arguing that killing Dumbledore was heroic, but it may well have taken a rare kind of courage not to be found in any character except Snape.) You keep saying that Snape had other options, but surely the moment he cast a spell attacking one of the DEs the UV would have kicked in and killed him. As for offering DD an antidote, even if he had a bezoar in his pocket and could shove it down DD's throat without the UV or the DEs killing him, a bezoar does not protect against all poisons. (Snape says in SS/PS that it's an antidote against "most poisons," but the green stuff in the cave is clearly no ordinary poison.) It's unlikely that he knew what Dumbledore would face in the cave even if DD informed him in advance that he was going after another Horcrux: DD didn't know himself. So whatever antidote Snape needed would not have been at hand, certainly not in his pocket, and to summon an antidote from his office (in the unlikely event that he had the right one in stock) would again have brought on the UV. Anyway, to sum up, I don't think that Snape could have used an antidote even if he had one available or summoned the Order members (because of the blocked passage). The Death Eaters would have realized his "treachery" and killed him even if the UV didn't. (Not even Snape could fight four Death Eaters and the UV at the same time.) And if Snape had died and Draco was still unwilling to kill Dumbledore, one of the four Death Eaters would have done it--and then killed Draco for failing to do it. Even if DD was not dying from the poison, as I believe he was, he was too weak to defend himself against Fenrir Grayback alone, let alone Fenrir and three other DEs. Once he allowed himself to be disarmed, he was doomed, Snape or no Snape, vow or no vow. Suppose Snape hadn't arrived. How would DD have rescued himself? Which brings me to the question of why he didn't summon Fawkes from his office as he did in the MoM. Either he was too weak and couldn't do it or he knew he must die and chose not to do it. But the Dumbledore who had fought Voldemort in the MoM and easily fended off Fudge, Umbridge, and company earlier in OoP was gone, weakened by the poison and the extra effort of fending off the protective spells against brooms as he and Harry flew to the tower. (That, I think, is what DD means when he says that he's returned "after a fashion.") He could not even deal with a not-quite-seventeen-year-old boy who half-wanted to kill him. The Dumbledore of OoP could easily have frozen *both* Draco and Harry to the wall and dealt with the Death Eaters in such a way that Snape's vow would not even have kicked in. What Snape would have done in that situation I can't guess, but he didn't have the option of dealing with a fully functional Dumbledore. What he faced was a helpless and very ill Dumbledore who had let himself fly into a trap he could not escape from. And Snape, entering that room, walked into the same trap. That it was partly of his own making because of the UV only makes it the more tragic, IMO. I don't think Dumbledore's great mistake (relevant here though I don't think you mentioned it in this post) is trusting Snape or even not listening when Harry told him that Draco had succeeded in doing whatever he'd been trying to do in the ROR. (Dumbledore knew he had limited time to get Harry to that Horcrux and Draco's success made it all the more urgent to do so immediately--the fact that it was a fake Horcrux doesn't matter, but I don't want to go into that here.) Dumbledore's big mistake, in my view, was in flying to the tower, right into the DE's trap, instead of sending Harry for Snape as he originally intended. Had he done so, Snape could have saved (or at least tried to save) Dumbledore a second time with no danger from the UV because Draco would not have been present (but Harry would have been, and what better opportunity for Snape to prove his loyalty?). But by flying to the tower, despite knowing that Death Eaters had set off the Dark Mark and that Draco must have let them in, Dumbledore put all the pieces into play that would lead to his death, activating the Unbreakable Vow by placing himself, Draco, and the Death Eaters in one place and placing Snape in the untenable position of keeping it or dying. And he must have known, as well, that the moment for the DADA curse to strike was at hand. (I'm not blaming Dumbledore, just seeing him and Snape as victims of fate or the will of Voldemort or ironic coincidence.) And here's a new thought: Just as Dumbledore has persuaded Harry to run to the school to fetch Snape (rather than Madam Pomfrey), who should show up but Madam Rosmerta, the very person who has been Imperioed by Draco Malfoy to aid him in killing Dumbledore (HBP Am. ed. 580)? I don't think Rosmerta was a willing agent of the Dark Side, but if she hadn't shown up to "help" just at that moment and pointed out the Dark Mark, Harry would have run for Snape. Instead Dumbledore decides not to wait in the Three Broomsticks but to fly to the tower. Once they arrive, he still wants Harry to go for Snape (by this time he's exhausted himself again and is "clutching at his chest with his blackened hand" like a man who's having a heart attack, 583, and reminding Harry that he swore to obey), but it's too late. Draco bursts in at that moment. *If only* Rosmerta hadn't pointed out the Dark Mark, DD would have remained at the Three Broomsticks and not gone to the tower and Harry could have brought Snape to help him (assuming that he could and would). But fate (or the DADA curse) stepped in and Dumbledore made his last and greatest mistake. From the moment Draco disarmed him, there could be (IMO) no outcome but Dumbledore's death. The only variables were who would kill him and how many others would die with him. Carol, whose posts grow in the telling From morianna at mindspring.com Mon Oct 10 15:43:51 2005 From: morianna at mindspring.com (Morianna X. Smythe) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:43:51 -0700 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) - LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002a01c5cdb1$6a1d0780$220110ac@MoriMain> No: HPFGUIDX 141421 ESMITH WRITES: >> 7. DD and Harry go to the cave My interpreation [sic] - Since the last Horcrux curse damaged DD profoundly, I think that he would have informed Snape that he was going after another. He would have told Snape that his help might be required on DD's return. They might even have discussed how another curse might affect an already sickened DD i.e. 'This could be the night, Severus!' << Prof Mori: As I was re-reading the scene where Harry "helps" DD drink the potion in the basin, I noted Rowling's use of the terms "hatred and revulsion" on Harry's face as he completes DD's command to "obey" and continues to provide the potion to DD. ESMITH: >> 8. The White Tower. DD is killed by Severus Snape. My interpretation - DD gets progressively sicker during his presence at the white tower (paler looking/slips further down the wall). At this point, I don't think he can be saved. Flitwick meanwhile comes to Snape's office and informs him of the DEs' arrival. Snape DOESN'T kill Flitwick, only stuns him. He realises that the plan to use Draco to kill DD is now in operation. He rushes to find DD. He enters the 'White Tower' scene knowing it has been prearranged that he kill DD, but when confronted with this, he pauses. DD pleads with Severus to carry out the plan, which Snape finally manages. << Prof Mori: Strangely, we have Rowling using the *same* language when Snape AK's DD, "hatred and revulsion." Is this additional evidence? Does it allow the reader to infer that Snape is "obeying" DD as Harry did in the previous chapter? Because of the language similarity between the scenes, perhaps the reader should assume similarities in the characters' motives. If DD had died from ingesting the potion alone, would we all be ready to condemn Harry for his obedience? If DD *couldn't* be saved AND if Snape was NOT acting under DD's command, then Harry is DD's murderer, and Snape's AK could be seen as simply a coup de grace (which is an honorable treatment of the terminally wounded in and after battle-or it used to be). I really doubt Rowling wants us to read Harry's obedience to DD as complicity in DD's murder. Prof Mori From saturniia at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 17:57:06 2005 From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:57:06 -0000 Subject: Bill will die! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141422 Brothergib wrote: > In HBP, we are informed that Bill is a curse breaker. > > I think that Bill will attempt to break the curse on the locket. But > since DD only survived due to his 'prodigous skill' and Snape's > intervention, I think it may be curtains for poor old Bill!! We are informed in GoF that Bill is a Curse-Breaker, not HBP. Also, comparing a young, vital man accomplished in the specialization of breaking curses to an old autodidact headmaster is like comparing a scalpel to a trusted Swiss Army knife. Yes, the Swiss Army knife is sturdy, and it will help you in hundreds of situations, but it has limitations in each field that the individual components do not have. The scalpel, on the other hand, may be ineffective when one is trying to tighten a screw or uncork a bottle, but when it comes to making easy, precise cuts, the more specific instrument is the way to go. I'm not saying that Bill won't die, but to say it so definitively when we're just outsiders is foolish. Saturniia From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 01:36:00 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:36:00 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141423 > James Sharman wrote: > > > if DD was actually going to die > > from the potion then Snape has also > > saved Harry from the guilt associated > > with that. > eggplant: > The lethality or non-lethality of that cave potion is quite > irrelevantin the matter of Snape's treachery. Valky: True, but apart from the witnesses subjective opinion what evidence of treachery do we have? I'll answer that: We have the words Avada Kedavra and a green light. This is enough for you? From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 11 02:29:34 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:29:34 EDT Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141424 But there's another reason, why I consider Snape to be on the good side, which has nothing to do with Snape but all with Dumbledore. I have already adressed this earlier, but haven't seen an answer to it. (Doesn't mean there wasn't any answer, I haven't read any Snape related post the last months). I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging for his life. And I refuse any exception that has him doing this. This is the man who said "Death is nothing but the next great adventure" and told Tom that it was his biggest mistake to think there's nothing more than death. Have him begging for his life in the minute, where it really is on stack, simply would negitate this. This is why I'm also not satisfied with OFH!Snape and your otherwise really great theory, that Snape simply thought killing Dumbledore would be the least bad solution (a theory, with which I otherwise very well might have agreed). It does not explain Dumbledore's reaction to me. Lupinlore talked about bad writing in other posts. Well, for me, the worst writing would be Dumbledore begging for his life, or even generally pleading in a whimpy voice to any villain (even if the idendity of that villain took him by surprise). You have seen how he spoke to Voldemort in OotP and to the other DE's on the tower. The reaction of the Dumbledore I knew, if he realized Snape had betrayed him, would be: "Well, Severus, I must admit I was mistaken in you. It's really a pity that you threw away your chance like that". (Not to mention that he already starts pleading, before Snape even raises his wand). Hickengruendler Julie now: This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence to me also. I too was struck by the fact that Dumbledore was pleading with Snape before Snape even looked at him. What...as Snape strode toward the Tower, Dumbledore suddenly had this unprovoked realization that Snape was coming to kill him? After 16 years, after a few thousand utterances of "I trust Severus Snape completely", and after sharing who knows how many plans or how much critical information with the man, NOW Dumbledore suddenly wakes up and recognizes the evil that is Snape? Another piece of evidence in my opinion (not ironclad proof) is the wording JKR used. Most of the time, if one is begging someone else not to do something, there is usually a negative connotation. For instance, "Please, don't..." or "Severus, no..." But in HBP we get Dumbledore saying "Severus...please..." which tells me he is begging Snape to DO something, rather than to NOT do something. "Severus...please...(You must do it. It's the only way.)" One could argue Dumbledore was begging Snape to please cure him with an antidote. But that doesn't make any sense. It's not going to happen in front of half a dozen DEs and when Snape might well drop dead from the UV if he tries to help Dumbledore rather than kill him. And that assumes Snape was able to prepare an antidote beforehand (unlikely, since Dumbledore couldn't know what kind of curse/potion he might be facing in the cave), since the antidote cure probably would require the same quick action that curing Dumbledore of the ring horcrux curse required. So, I agree. If Dumbledore was in character, he would be shaking his head sadly and giving an ESE!Snape one of his usual "You have failed me, but even more, you have failed yourself" speeches. And if Snape was ESE!Snape, he would be gloating, "I put up with your patronization for years. You really are an old fool..." or some such. Trying to fit ESE!Snape or even OFH!Snape into the Tower scene leaves Dumbledore and Snape acting completely out of character. Which is just one factor that makes me suspect DDM!Snape must be the answer. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 11 02:58:49 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:58:49 -0000 Subject: A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141425 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > Another piece of evidence in my opinion (not ironclad proof) is the > wording JKR used. Most of the time, if one is begging someone > else not to do something, there is usually a negative connotation. > For instance, "Please, don't..." or "Severus, no..." But in HBP we > get Dumbledore saying "Severus...please..." which tells me he is > begging Snape to DO something, rather than to NOT do something. > "Severus...please...(You must do it. It's the only way.)" > Actually, I completely and totally disagree that the wording tells us anything whatsoever about whether DD wanted Snape to do something or not to do something. Certainly why I am pleading with someone, whether to do or not to do anything. I always start with their name, thus invoking a personal relationship and therefore making a much more persuasive case. "Mother, please don't be so obtuse." Or, "Jack, please don't disappoint me this time around." Or, "Peter, please do a better job this time." Or, "Ed, please remember what we talked about. Starting a sentence with "Severus, please..." tells us absolutely, positively, nothing about whether Dumbledore was asking Snape to do something or not to do something. Having said that, I totally agree that DD would not plead for his own life. He would, however, plead for any number of other things perfectly in keeping with any interpretion of Snape, including OFH! and ESE! For instance, "Severus, please don't do this to yourself." or "Severus, please remember how important our cause is." or "Severus, please don't forget there are things beyond your own hurts." or "Severus, please remember all our long talks." In fact, I would be much more inclined to find that DDM!Snape would be a good literary possibility (i.e. good writing) had DD said nothing. In a DDM scenario, there is nothing to be said and no need to say it. By indicating that DD did feel the need to say something, JKR makes it much more difficult, indeed nearly impossible, to craft a DDM!Snape that would constitute good writing. The idea that Snape, of all people, would be so sentimental as to need urging is rankly unbelievable, and reeks of ham-fisted and poorly written manipulation. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 03:38:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:38:27 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141426 > Hickengruendler: >> But there's another reason, why I consider Snape to be on the good > side, which has nothing to do with Snape but all with Dumbledore. I > have already adressed this earlier, but haven't seen an answer to it. > (Doesn't mean there wasn't any answer, I haven't read any Snape > related post the last months). I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging > for his life. And I refuse any exception that has him doing this. Alla: Heee, this is of course your right and privilege to refuse any exception that makes DD beg for his life, but I do NOT refuse that exception, because the future of WW hangs on whether Harry will be able to retrieve all FOUR horcruxes and may I say again - Dumbledore himself only managed TWO so far. Are you saying that Dumbledore won't abandon his pride for a chance to help Harry to do so? I definitely say he may. For both personal and professional so to speak reasons. Personal - because he cares about Harry SO much, as he admitted at the end of OOP and surely Harry would want DD help and professional - because DD can see that Harry is not ready yet to do it on his own. I mean, obviously he would do it now, but considering the fact how hard it was for DD to destroy horcruxes, I am not sure he would be sure that Harry is ready. I mean, I think DD knows that love would help Harry to destroy Voldie himself, but to destroy nasty magical objects created by Voldie, you need more than Love , IMO. So, yeah, DD would not have normaly beg for his life, except in this situation, I think he just may. Besides, pleading may not have been directly involved with pleading for his life. I mean, I like " do not betray me" the most, BUT IF let's say DD indeed picked from Snape readiness to kill him ( emotions after all could be picked by legilimency) and resigned to his fate ( not asked Snape to do so, but just saw that Snape is the Judas, so to speak), he may have been pleading "remember your promise, protect Harry", or something like that. Cry of desperation, so to speak. I think it would be very Dumbledorish, even knowing that Snape is going to kill him to call to something good in his soul, hoping that it is still there. Hickengruendler: This > is why I'm also not satisfied with OFH!Snape and your otherwise > really great theory, that Snape simply thought killing Dumbledore > would be the least bad solution (a theory, with which I otherwise > very well might have agreed). It does not explain Dumbledore's > reaction to me. Alla: I would love to take credit for it, but I think it is just the reiteration of one points in Severely Siguine essay, which I adore, as I said several times. :-) > Pippin: > If he sends a patronus it will be visible to the DE's, which would be > kind of a giveaway, don't you think? What will they think he's doing, > ordering out for pizza? The patronus does not move at the speed > of light -- In all this time, the vow is too stupid to realize it's been broken? Alla: LOL! That was really funny the way you put it, Pippin. Snape, ordering out for pizza, I mean. But no, I don't think that it would necessarily be a give away to DE because I am not suggesting that Snape should cast it on the Tower, but while he is being on the way. I think he could have figured out that situation is really bad, no? Besides do we know for sure how fast Patronus is? I think it is really fast, personally. But this was just one of the options and I think I may come up with some other speculations for Snape having options. :-) > Pippin: > "had I not been in on the secret, Narcissa, you would have been > guilty of great treachery to the Dark Lord." --HBP ch2 > Snape's willingness to take the vow is Bella's and Narcissa's only > proof that he isn't stringing them along. Without it, they > dare not leave him alive. Alla: Thanks for the quote, but I am not sure I can agree with your conclusion. I think Bella would be much more happy for Narcissa to get out and leave ASAP. > Pippin: > Surely Voldemort knows all about bezoars, and wouldn't use a poison > that could be cured by one? The poison could even have been worse than > death in Dumbledore's eyes -- what if it had unicorn blood in it? Alla: Erm... do we know that Voldemort knows about bezoar? Snape is supposed to be a Potions genuis, no? But even if Voldemort knows about it, I am not convinced that he won't use the poizon that won't be cure by it. He is incredibly arrogant after all. Had he not given Harry back his wand and started talking in Graveyard, I may had been agreeing with you, but not after I saw Voldemort acting as complete idiot. Sorry! :-) > Pippin: > This has become conventional wisdom apparently, but it's flat wrong. > Harry saw and heard complete dialogues via legilimency, real time, on at > least four occasions: Dumbledore knew about all that by > the end of OOP-- do you think he'd be unable to pull off the same trick > once he knew it was possible? Alla: Thanks for the examples. I think I am with Nora on this one. I don't think we have an example of anybody else receiving dialogs in their head except Harry, and I am not sure that was Legilimency, but more like Harry's special connection with Voldie. So, no I am not sure at all that DD would have been able to pull of the same trick, unless of course you are saying that DD has special connection with Snape via Snape's hidden scar ( just kidding of course :-)) > Carol responds: > I agree that we don't know the mechanics of the UV, only that if you > break it, you die (the only canon we have). But it wouldn't matter in > that case whether the UV acted or not because the Death Eaters would > have killed him. And in any case, as has been pointed out, he couldn't > have summoned the Order members anyway as the passage up the stairs > was blocked. Alla: And I think that it is debatable whether DE would have killed him or at least whethet they would have killed him right away. I also think it is unclear whether Patronus definitely HAVE to travel the same way human being would. Maybe Patronus can just pass through blocked passage,something aking to what hosts do. > Carol responds: > I'm a bit confused. The UV can be viewed as mitigating circumstances, > but Snape should be sent to Azkaban for his irrresponsibility in > taking it? Alla: Ok, my previous comments could be read UPTHREAD, but I don't think I anywhere called UV itself to be mitigating circumstances. I said that Snape was an idiot for taking UV, but on the Tower I could see mitigating circumstances,maybe. NOT the UV itself, but its consequences. As in "he made a wrong choice, but he may not have anticipated all that will happen as result of it" Besides, that response was just to Pippin hypothetical that Snape primary motive in killing DD was caring about Draco. I don't really believe in this hypothetical. I mean caring for Draco could be one of the motives of course, but I think Snape wanted to save himself first and foremost. I always try to remember that what I believe in could be completely and utterly wrong at the end. The fact I may try on other scenarious, because it is intellectually enjoyable does not necessarily mean that I agree with with other scenarious. :-) It is also helping me to prevent myself from future disapointments. For example, I always keep in mind that JKR may go the "complete DD! man scenario" as in DD asking Snape to kill him, but it does not mean that I think that it will happen. So, yes , I think that UV was a bad, really bad choice to make. Carol: > We actually don't know that Snape was being irresponsible (or idiotic) > since don't know how much he knew about Draco's task when he took the > Unbreakable Vow or why he took it. Clearly he did not anticipate the > last provision, at least. But surely people > shouldn't go to Azkaban for irresponsible decisions or lapses in > judgment or "idiocy." If that's the case, then Scrimgeour is justified > in arresting Stan Shunpike. Alla: To me , if Snape was being irresponsible and idiotic , it is actually a good thing, because otherwise I view taking UV as Snape in the role of "killer for hire" signing the contract to murder Dumbledore. Snape should go to Azkaban, because choice he made lead to his mentor's death by Snape's hand. Keep in mind that I am not suggesting Snape to be kissed or anything, but I don't want the killing to be unpunished. And Stan did not kill anybody. Carol: > But I agree with you on the mitigating circumstances. Whatever Snape's > reasons for taking the vow, it clearly restricted his choices on the > tower--making him in some sense his own victim. It certainly did not > operate to his advantage. Alla: Do you agree with me considering the fact that I do not consider UV to be mitigating circumstances? :-) But I agree with you - UV restricted Snape choices on the Tower, absolutely. I am just not sure about it is not operating to his advantage, since OFH!Snape can turn anything to his advantage. But even if it did not operate to his advantage, I am convinced of one thing - that at the heart of Snape's behaviour on the Tower lied desire to save his own skin. Could this assumption be wrong? Absolutely, but so far I am convinced of that premise. Now, I can see different REASONS for which Snape may have wanted to stay alive and one of them may be helping good guys, but I don't see initial action of killing DD as selfless act and for THAT I want Snape to be punished. Carol: > BTW, arguing that he's trapped by his own error in making the vow (a > point I think you actually agree with) is not the same as arguing that > he's a hero on the tower (or rather, that he chose the lesser of two > evils, which is what we're actually arguing). Alla: NO, it is not the same and if he was trapped by his own error( which I can see as possibility - as in his intellectual arrogance got the best of him ), he can be salvageable for me, but I am not so sure that it was so. Carol: (No one is arguing > that killing Dumbledore was heroic, but it may well have taken a rare > kind of courage not to be found in any character except Snape.) Alla: LOL! I have seen many people argue that. Maybe not in this thread,but it is VERY popular argument, IMO. I am snipping out the rest of your post, since I only wanted to address these points and to sum up, I actually think that some parts of your version of Good or conflicted!Snape make sense to me ( as I said earlier, it does not mean that I think that this is going to happen, but I can see it). I don't buy Fake Avada Kedavra, but Trapped!Snape, who commits real murder does not seem contrived to me. I realised that in general I can buy any scenario, as long as Snape is not being a hero for killing DD. That makes no sense to me, unfortunately. JMO, Alla. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 04:01:15 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:01:15 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141427 "M.Clifford" wrote: > apart from the witnesses subjective opinion And the narrator's objective description. > what evidence of treachery do we have? Dumbledore's murder. > I'll answer that: We have the words > Avada Kedavra and a green light. And Dumbledore getting pushed by Snape from the highest tower at Hogwarts and developing a bit of a speech impediment. > This is enough for you? Yep. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 04:18:11 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:18:11 -0000 Subject: Communicating by Legilimency (Was: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141428 Alla wrote: > > I don't remember anything in canon pointing out that you can > > converse telepathically using Legilimency. > Pippin responded: > This has become conventional wisdom apparently, but it's flat wrong. Harry saw and heard complete dialogues via legilimency, real time, on at least four occasions: > > Snape, of course, need only be good enough at legilimency to receive the message-- he does not have to be able to send one by the same means. > Carol adds: While I agree with Nora that these four conversations are peculiar to the Harry/Voldemort link in OoP and don't constitute typical Legilimency, I think Pippin's last remark is well taken. We don't need to imagine a conversation taking place between Snape and Dumbledore, only DD *sending* and Snape *receiving* brief messages in the form of images. (I do think that Snape could send a message that DD could read with no effort whatever; in fact, he controls the images that LV sees in his mind through Occlumency if I'm reading OoP correctly, but in this instance, he needs only to receive DD's messages/images and interpret them correctly.) DD has clearly indicated with his "Severus. . ." that he has something to communicate, and Snape meets his gaze, as he needs to do in order to see into another's mind. We know that he can see images in other people's minds with very little effort (the Potions book incident cited by zgirnius) unless that person is using Occlumency (as Draco attempts to do when Snape confronts him), and in this instance DD certainly would not be trying to block Snape's efforts to see into his mind. Quite the opposite, if we're correct. We know from Snape's Occlumency lessons in OoP that seeing such images can enable a Legilimens to determine whether someone is telling the truth (not relevant here since DD would hardly be lying), but the images also indicate the emotional state of the person whose thoughts or memories are being glimpsed--the particular thing a person fears or whatever concern is uppermost in his mind (Legilimency on Narcissa in "Spinner's End" would no doubt have revealed the DEs AKing Draco). Dumbledore could have chosen particular images to convey his fear of a particular outcome (say, Harry rushing into the fray and being killed) or a sense of urgency in getting Snape to do what he needed him to do (to cast an AK-like spell to send DD over the wall, to use zgirnius's example) or simply to convey that he was dying (the poison in the cave example cited by zgirnius). Seeing such images could certainly account for the abrupt change in Snape's own emotional state, reflected in his expression, from darting eyes taking in the scene to a look of revulsion and hatred as he gazes into Dumbledore's eyes (but does not raise his wand till Dumbledore says "Severus, please. . . ," HBP 795). Whether the words mean, "Severus, please obey my last order" or "Severus, please, we have no more time" or even, "Severus, please kill me," it's probable that Snape understands the meaning and Harry, who thinks DD is begging for his life, does not. Yet, ironically, Harry himself attempted something similar with Snape in OoP, *willing* Snape to read his mind: "His cold, dark eyes were boring into Harry's, who met his gaze unflinchingly, concentrating hard on what he had seen in his dream, willing Snape to read it in his mind, to understand. . . ." (OoP Am. ed. 744-45). Harry then tries staring at Snape and thinking, "Voldemort's got Sirius in the Department of Mysteries." Snape, of course, is in the process of denying Umbridge's demands for Veritaserum and is pretending to ignore Harry, who finally resorts to shouting, "He's got Padfoot in the place where it's hidden!" (745) forcing Snape to state coldly that if he wants nonsense shouted at him, he'll give Harry a Babbling Beverage (746). Now it's possible that Snape didn't get the point until Harry "babbled" it, but knowing what we do now about Snape's abilities as a Legilimens, along with the fact that Harry was *willing* him to see the image from his dreams, I'm guessing that Snape did indeed see what Harry wanted him to see and was able to give the Order a fairly accurate description of what Harry thought was happening based on Harry's deliberate communication through Legilimency. If that's the case, then Dumbledore willing Snape to see what happened in the cave or what he wished Snape to do is neither far-fetched fan speculation nor a new idea without precedent in earlier books. In fact, the incident appears to be nicely foreshadowed by the passage just cited. Carol, noting that even the DE Amycus thinks that Dumbledore is "not long for this world," more evidence that DD is indeed dying (594) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 04:22:09 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:22:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141429 "hickengruendler" wrote: > I simply cannot see Dumbledore > begging for his life. I don't know, I think Dumbledore wanted to live. But if I had to guess I'd say he was pleading with Snape not to betray him and tell him he was never his friend and show that he'd been wrong about him for 16 years. However if I were JKR I'd never make it entirely clear what he meant, when you read real history small mysteries and loose ends like that are very common; and after all Dumbledore is dead so he can't tell us what he meant. Eggplant From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 04:25:57 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 04:25:57 -0000 Subject: Harry is Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141430 > Valky wrote: > > apart from the witnesses subjective opinion > eggplant: > And the narrator's objective description. Valky again: Of a green light and the words Avada Kedavra. > Valky: > > what evidence of treachery do we have? > eggplant: > Dumbledore's murder. Valky: First it needs to be established that it *was* a murder. I stand by my uncontested statement that this is not conclusively established. > Valky: > > I'll answer that: We have the words > > Avada Kedavra and a green light. > eggplant: > And Dumbledore getting pushed by Snape from the highest tower at > Hogwarts Valky: This is a very good point. It does corroborate evidence of treachery on the Tower. It comes very close to proving it. Except that it is preceeded by the whole dodgy AK fiasco, and mitigated by Fawkes, DD's loyal pet, keeping his distance, I would agree. eggplant: and [Dumbledore] developing a bit of a speech impediment. Valky: I am not sure what that concludes for you, but it certainly corroborates plenty of other theories as well. > Valky: > > This is enough for you? > eggplant: > Yep. Valky: Oh, OK. It's just not a very thorough investigation is all. From kjones at telus.net Tue Oct 11 05:54:15 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:54:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Cold Equation (was Re: The Trial Of Severus Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434B5387.7080601@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141431 lupinlore wrote: > Actually, I completely and totally disagree that the wording tells us > anything whatsoever about whether DD wanted Snape to do something or > not to do something. snip > Starting a sentence with "Severus, please..." tells us absolutely, > positively, nothing about whether Dumbledore was asking Snape to do > something or not to do something. snip > By indicating that DD did feel the need to say something, JKR makes it > much more difficult, indeed nearly impossible, to craft a DDM!Snape > that would constitute good writing. The idea that Snape, of all > people, would be so sentimental as to need urging is rankly > unbelievable, and reeks of ham-fisted and poorly written manipulation. > > Lupinlore KJ writes: I have to back Juli on this one. I think that consideration has to be given to the argument that Snape and Dumbledore had in the forest. There was obviously something that Dumbledore was pressuring Snape into doing that he did not want to do. In fact he was threatening to walk away from the whole thing by saying that "he didn't want to do it any more". My impression was that the moment Snape looked around the tower,he sized up the situation, and looked to Dumbledore for instructions. Dumbledore said his name immediately to get his attention and stop him from doing anything Gryffindorish, and then "please" to encourage him to do what had to be done. JKR has written Snape to be the greatest mystery in the book. She has gone to great lengths to keep him ambiguous. He has held the interest, certainly of this list, for the entire set of books so far. I think, too, that we know the story has to end one of two ways. If Harry kills Voldemort, some people will complain that it is boring and too obvious. If Voldemort kills Harry, people might be more surprised, but if no value comes of his death, we will all be hugely disappointed. If Snape turns out good, half of us will say we knew it all the time and most of us fully expect that he will lose his life at the end. Does that make it disappointing for those of us that think that way. I find it logical, just as I fully expect Peter Pettigrew to snuff it, fighting with Fenrir (silver hand, you know). We are being manipulated by a very good story teller. All books, and movies manipulate us to certain beliefs and emotions. To succeed in those efforts makes a successful writer. For a writer to tell a story over six books and several years and still have maintained the ability to keep us all wondering how it ends, is pretty darned fine work, in my humble opinion, regardless of how she chooses to end it. KJ From jamess at climaxgroup.com Tue Oct 11 10:07:15 2005 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:07:15 +0100 Subject: JKR must love this! Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD84@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 141432 The vitality of debate on all the issues raised in HBP and before is amazing. Much better than all the sniping on who (Insert name here) should end up kissing. The kind of debate running here these days is why I came to this list. In realty we are not going to solve many of the big questions before book seven, but the journey will be fun. Now if only JKR would write faster.... From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 11 12:17:25 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:17:25 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141433 > Alla: > > LOL! That was really funny the way you put it, Pippin. Snape, > ordering out for pizza, I mean. But no, I don't think that it would > necessarily be a give away to DE because I am not suggesting that > Snape should cast it on the Tower, but while he is being on the way. > I think he could have figured out that situation is really bad, no? > Besides do we know for sure how fast Patronus is? I think it is > really fast, personally. > But this was just one of the options and I think I may come up with > some other speculations for Snape having options. :-) Potioncat: We've seen a Patronus cast at the beginning of HBP and it appeared to take some time to reach Hogwarts. So it is faster than an owl, but slower than floo, perhaps? But, why didn't anyone send a Patronus to the rest of the Order? Not Snape from the Tower, but McGonagall, Lupin, Bill, Tonks? No one seems to have called for backup. Hmmm, you know in OoP, it's considered very, very crucial to some readers that Snape didn't contact the Order when Harry was missing. Now we have an entire company of "Order" members who fail to contact the rest of the Order when Hogwarts is in danger. > > Alla: > > Thanks for the examples. I think I am with Nora on this one. I > don't think we have an example of anybody else receiving dialogs in > their head except Harry, and I am not sure that was Legilimency, but > more like Harry's special connection with Voldie. So, no I am not > sure at all that DD would have been able to pull of the same trick, > unless of course you are saying that DD has special connection with > Snape via Snape's hidden scar ( just kidding of course :-)) Potioncat: We don't have direct evidence, no. Harry thought Snape could "read" his mind as early as SS/PS, but it wasn't as certain to the readers that it was happening. Reading GoF after reading OoP, it seems that Snape is trying to use Legilimency when he confronted Harry about the gillyweed. (The classroom scene when he puts Harry in the desk in front of his own desk.) But in HBP, to me at least, Snape seems to be well aware of Harry's thoughts. It starts that very first night at Hogwarts: >>Harry wondered whether he could slip his IC back on, thereby gaining his seat at the long Gryffindor table...withou being noticed. As though he had read Harry's mind, however, Snape said, "No cloak. You can walk in so that everyone sees you, which is what you wanted, I'm sure."<< I feel certain, that if images can be so clearly seen without intent by the subject, that information could be communicated by someone who wanted to. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 12:35:47 2005 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 12:35:47 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141434 > Pippin: > Seems to me we need to get the variables nailed down here, because > there is a vast opportunity to play fast and loose. > To wit, Snape was an idiot to take the vow, except that some are > arguing that there must have been a way to outwit it, in which case, > he wouldn't have been an idiot to take it. A bit tangential to your arguement, but--much as I dislike Snape--if he truly was working for Dumbledore, taking the Vow should be seen not as a foolish act, but as a calculated risk. I'm assuming that Snape did *not* know what task Voldemort set Draco, and, for the moment, assuming that Snape wants Voldemort dead. Look at it from Snape's point of view: Voldemort is up to something involving a mole--Draco--at Hogwarts itself. He doesn't know what it is, but judging by the normally cool and collected Narcissa's reaction to it, it's big. So he risks his life to find out. He pretends to already know what Narcissa is talking about in hopes that she will spill her guts and to keep Bella from preventing her from doing so. Narcissa brings up the Unbreakable Vow. If he refuses to take it, the discussion is over, he will not learn what Draco is up to--so, in for a penny, in for a pound--he takes the Vow. Certainly, he's risking his life, but *that's what Snape does*. His whole life as a spy is one big risk. The Vow is just one more. Amiable Dorsai From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 11 05:15:41 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:15:41 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141435 crypticamoeba wrote: > Considering the target audience, 10-15 years old; I cannot > imagine a way to explain to a 12 year old that yes Snape killed DD > but it is ok because DD was (Dying, Cursed, Asking him to). Any > way you cut it, it will sound flat on that level. All of Rowlings > writing has maintain an accessibility to that age group and I > cannot imagine it changing. I think you've struck on something very important here, and something that has been bothering me about a lot of our discussions. Much of the DDM!Snape speculation rests on controversial scenarios (DD was dying so it was okay, realpolitik, the greatest good, DD and Severus set it up in advance, DD asked Severus to do it) the morality of which even a LOT of adults will not accept. Were this a book primarily aimed at adults, that might be all well and good providing JKR is looking to create controversy. But JKR has always been very clear that this is a children's series and, as much as she appreciates her adult fans, we are very definitely NOT her primary audience. Like you a cannot imagine JKR trying to tell twelve-year-olds that it's okay that Snape killed DD because of X or Y. This is especially the case considering her repeated statements that she is NOT out to teach any specific moral lessons, and trying to convince her readers that killing DD is okay because of X or Y is by definition trying to argue very strongly for a specific moral lesson. crypticamoeba: > Yes, we can often pick up on a second meaning or a more profound > message, but the underline event is simple. True. crypticamoeba: > The only way I can imagine explaining why Snape killing DD is good > to a 12 year old is if somehow DD come back, (Pulls a Obi-Wan or > Gandalf). You could tell a child that it was ok cause DD knew he > could still help Harry and was working with Snape. But without > that I think that Snape is beyond salvation. Or if DD in fact never died at all and all of this is some plot on his part to fake his own death. However, if DD pulls something like that I sincerely hope that Harry knocks his teeth down his throat (I know I would if one of my loved ones put me through something like that deliberately). Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 11 05:35:31 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:35:31 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141436 Nicolau C. Saldanha wrote: > I find that this (Dumbledore's pleading) is the bit of canon which > does not fit into either of the main theories. It is grossly > off-character for Dumbledore to beg for his own life. It is equally > off-character for Dumbledore to ask Snape to kill him with an AK > (for whatever reason: it shatters the soul). I find it also > extremely unlikely that the pleading refered to something > unrelated. To me there is only one way out: Snape did not kill > Dumbledore. Dumbledore was begging for Snape to *pretend* to kill > him by saying "Avada Kedavra" and casting a different spell to > knock Dumbledore out of the tower: I think all the non-verbal spell > thread was there so that JKR could come up with this without > cheating. The ring, potion and cave water killed Dumbledore. In > other words, Dumbledore was begging for Snape to take the blame for > a crime of which he was innocent, and this is something which fits > Dumbledore's character perfectly well. It also explains the > hatred and revulsion in Snape's face. But this is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. Even if we hypothesize that DD was dying from the potion and wanted to spare Harry's feelings, there was absolutely no reason for DD to ask Snape to do anything. All DD had to do was keep his mouth shut and let the DEs kill him. Then Harry would have been blaming Fenrir, et. al., not necessarily Snape. Besides, how in the world would DD have communicated such a request? Legilimency? That would be terrible writing indeed. Not only is it unspeakably contrived, it also introduces all sorts of powers not previously in evidence. We have no evidence whatsoever that Legilimency can be used in such a manner -- indeed, all the evidence we have is that it most definitely cannot be (all the evidence we have for mental conversations is Harry/Voldemort, which is constantly stressed as being a special case, NOT Legilimency). Even if Legilimency can be used in such a manner, DD had only a few seconds -- unbelievable and contrived to say he could have pleaded silently with Severus in that length of time. Lupinlore From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Tue Oct 11 13:29:18 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:29:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141437 Hickengruendler wrote: > I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging for his life. Eggplant: > I don't know, I think Dumbledore wanted to live. But if I had to guess > I'd say he was pleading with Snape not to betray him and tell him he > was never his friend and show that he'd been wrong about him for 16 > years. However if I were JKR I'd never make it entirely clear what he > meant, when you read real history small mysteries and loose ends like > that are very common; and after all Dumbledore is dead so he can't > tell us what he meant. I don't think so: this is a point of too obvious interest, it cannot be dismissed just like that. Not clarifying that would be IMO comparable to leaving us in the dark as to the meaning of the famous gleam on the grounds that Dumbledore is dead and can not tell. Yes, this kind of thing happens all the time in real life but should not happen in fiction, at least not in this kind of fiction (I think). And, of course, the explanation has to be consistent with what we know about DD: IMO neither "DD was pleading for his life" nor "DD was asking Snape to kill him with AK" are satisfactory. I also find your theory less than satisfactory: if DD somehow finds out that Snape is a traitor (before he says anything or raises his wand, mind you), pleading "Severus, please..." is not an adequate reaction from the DD we know. I add that I find speculation from DD's point of view to be much more solid than that from Snape's point of view. We know a lot about DD's character both from the books and from JKR's interviews; on the other hand, both the books and the interviews are very careful not to give away too much about Snape. So, for instance, it makes sense for me to say that ESE!Snape should have gloated before killing DD (which Snape did not, and therefore Snape is not ESE) but this argument is weaker than saying that DD would not plead for his life (because we know DD better than we know Snape). Nicolau From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 11 13:53:32 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:53:32 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141438 > Amiable Dorsai > Look at it from Snape's point of view: Voldemort is up to something > involving a mole--Draco--at Hogwarts itself. He doesn't know what it > is, but judging by the normally cool and collected Narcissa's reaction > to it, it's big. So he risks his life to find out. He pretends to > already know what Narcissa is talking about in hopes that she will > spill her guts and to keep Bella from preventing her from doing so. > > Narcissa brings up the Unbreakable Vow. If he refuses to take it, the > discussion is over, he will not learn what Draco is up to--so, in for > a penny, in for a pound--he takes the Vow. Certainly, he's risking > his life, but *that's what Snape does*. His whole life as a spy is > one big risk. The Vow is just one more. Magpie: But Narcissa is going to *tell* Snape what the plan is until he *stops* her by saying he already knows. He doesn't need to take a UV to get Narcissa to talk. She shows up at his house with the intention of telling him exactly what's going on and asking for help. He could just as easily let her tell him the plan and then said she shouldn't have told him, but as it happened he already knew everything she told him anyway. -m From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 13:53:51 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:53:51 -0000 Subject: Who Ya Gonna Call? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141439 Suppose on the merry horcrux hunt, one of the crusaders falls afoul of a deadly curse. I don't suppose the Trio want to sacrifice house-elves or Weasleys in their quest. Ron might be willing to give his life, but will Harry be so eager to see him go? So, who can they turn to for help? Dumbledore seems to have trusted one person to help him: Severus Snape. I've read speculation that Snape will try to contact Harry using a Patronus message, but it could be the other way around. The Trio doesn't really have much experience with Dark potions and curses. Hermione can apply book knowledge, but how fast can she identify an unknown poison or spell? Slughorn and Lupin have some knowledge, but they may be as morally dubious as Snape, and at least one of them would have to be let in on the horcrux secret. Snape probably already knows this secret. Harry has already seen him in action counteracting a Dark curse and possibly saving someone's life. And, Harry can cast a Patronus like nobody's business. If the HBP's book doesn't have a ready answer for Dark calamity, there is one person who does. Familiarity with the Dark Arts isn't such a horrible thing if knowing defenses and cures comes along with that knowledge. lealess From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Oct 11 14:04:48 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:04:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who Ya Gonna Call? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003801c5ce6c$be6950d0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141440 Suppose on the merry horcrux hunt, one of the crusaders falls afoul of a deadly curse. I don't suppose the Trio want to sacrifice house-elves or Weasleys in their quest. Ron might be willing to give his life, but will Harry be so eager to see him go? So, who can they turn to for help? lealess Sherry: how about Bill Weasley? There's got to be some reason he's a curse breaker. i expect his job will come into the situation eventually. i can't really see Harry turning to Snape. Sherry From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 11 15:07:10 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:07:10 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Amiable Dorsai > > > Look at it from Snape's point of view: Voldemort is up to > something > > involving a mole--Draco--at Hogwarts itself. He doesn't know what > it > > is, but judging by the normally cool and collected Narcissa's > reaction > > to it, it's big. So he risks his life to find out. He pretends to > > already know what Narcissa is talking about in hopes that she will > > spill her guts and to keep Bella from preventing her from doing so. > > > > Narcissa brings up the Unbreakable Vow. If he refuses to take it, > the > > discussion is over, he will not learn what Draco is up to--so, in > for > > a penny, in for a pound--he takes the Vow. Certainly, he's risking > > his life, but *that's what Snape does*. His whole life as a spy is > > one big risk. The Vow is just one more. Elyse: Oh I agree. His life is in danger each time he stands before Voldemort. It is only his Occlumency powers standing between him and death. So yes, the vow does seem like just another big risk if placed in this context. > > Magpie: > > But Narcissa is going to *tell* Snape what the plan is until he > *stops* her by saying he already knows. He doesn't need to take a > UV to get Narcissa to talk. She shows up at his house with the > intention of telling him exactly what's going on and asking for > help. He could just as easily let her tell him the plan and then > said she shouldn't have told him, but as it happened he already knew > everything she told him anyway. > > -m Elyse adds: He could indeed have done so. I tend to think the whole Spinner's end chapter to be way out of character for Snape. The UV was without question a really dumb thing to do. But I've been reading the chapter again, and I noticed the second time around, that it is *Snape* who offers to *help* Draco. Uptil that point, all Narcissa is trying to do is to get Snape to use his powers of persuasion and influence over Voldemort to get him to change his mind. And this is something Snape refuses to do point blank. Surely if he really wanted to help Narcissa and Draco, he would have tried, however halfheartedly, to convince Voldemort. We saw him spinning his yarn to Bellatrix, and he's been doing it to Voldemort for years. He could have found some way to persuade Voldemort. At the least, he could have tried. But he doesnt. Nope, instead of saying, I will do what I can to try and change his mind, he suddenly, without provocation, seemingly out of his own volition, actually *offers* to help. Since when does Snape do such a thing? Since when does any intelligent spy compromise his double agent position by offering to help kill one of his bosses and going behind the other boss' back to do it? This is IMO highly uncharacteristic of Snape. This is also my main objection to OFH!Snape. Why would a Snape who is out for himself offer to help kill DD? And that too, by mixing it up with a selfless motive like protecting Draco? And at the same time risking Voldemort's wrath? Wouldnt the easier solution be to let Harry and DD kill Voldemort, and *then* try to off DD? I mean if someone had asked me which one the two greatest wizards would be alive at the end, I would say LV since he had come back from the dead and was gaining power,whilst DD had a dead right hand and slower reactions. I know the whole series so far has been engineered to set up Ambiguous!Snape, but I think this would be slightly out of character for him. As he tells Fudge in GoF, he saw the Dark Mark grow stronger day by day. He knew LV was coming back. All the DE's knew. It seems to me he had plenty of time to think it over and make a cool, calculated choice in the Long Dark Nights of his Soul so that by the "If you are ready, if you are prepared..." scene in GoF, he knew exactly where his loyalties lay. Elyse -who very much enjoyed Zgirnius' entertaining post about the Legilimency conversation through images. If JKR uses it, you better ask for royalties! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 11 15:20:32 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:20:32 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141442 Jen Reese wrote: > I'm increasingly curious to know who concocted the cave potion. > Voldemort's skill and focus don't appear to be in potions. > So most likely Voldemort contracted out for the potion, using one > of four possible experts: Lily, Pettigrew, Snape or Slughorn. <<>> > Which leaves us with Slughorn, in the cave, with a potion kit ;). > I just have a nagging feeling there's another reason Slughorn went > on the run when Voldemort returned to his body. Dumbledore > mentioned Sluggy's 'considerable talents' and we find out he's an > accomplished Occlumens as well as saavy enough to carry antidotes > on his person. He's definitely not an old buffer! But he does have > a great weakness, a huge appetite for creature comforts, flattery > and attachment to powerful people, a person Voldemort could easily > manipulate in other words. Slughorn may have uneasily or > unwittingly helped Voldemort in exchange for creature comforts and > connections with powerful people.... > > Once Voldemort turned to vapor at GH, the situation changed for > Slughorn. He and Dumbledore were the only people who suspected why > Voldemort didn't die that night.... When Voldemort returned to his > body in GOF, Slughorn went into hiding, knowing Voldemort could not > be killed. SSSusan, cracking knuckles & ready to be back at the keyboard after a weekend at The Witching Hour: You know, I *like* this possibility. I attended a presentation at TWH on Slughorn and, fascinatingly, the general consensus seemed to be that ol' Sluggy is pretty much a nice guy. Ambitious, of course, in the Slytherin way (the perhaps more truly Slytherin way than Tom's ambition); desirous of being well- connected and able to name-drop; using others for how they could pad *his* life, but also *helping* those others attain what he believed they could. (Okay, that may have been *so that* they could turn around and be in his network, owing him favors or at least treats for his assistance. ;-)) Anyway, what intrigued me was the resounding support for Slughorn as a pretty decent chap -- perhaps even the "good Slytherin" so many have longed to meet. I sat in the session, looking around at all those who felt this way, feeling vaguely uncomfortable with the conclusion but unable to articulate quite why, beyond a notion that his level of self-interest was awfully high. One interesting part of the discussion came when Slughorn was compared to Snape [yes, yes, *ALL* discussions got 'round to Snape at some point, just like with us here at HPfGU] in terms of their performances as Slytherin Heads of House. And this is where I felt a little more that my discomfiture over "good Sluggy" was beginning to be addressed a bit. How *did* Slughorn perform as HoH? Is it possible that, while, yes, pretty much a nice enough & fairly innocuous guy, he was more concerned with and about, more focused on, his own Slug Club than on the members of his own house? If the current incarnation of the Slug Club is any indication, he had members from houses other than Slytherin in his club. Is it possible that, while these students were attended to (because of what he might eventually get from them), the general members of his house were neglected? Benignly neglected, perhaps, but still not attended to adequately? It certainly *appears,* anyway, that a whole lotta DE recruiting was going on in his house under his nose when Tom was there! I get the sense that Snape is FULLY aware of what's happening with his Slytherins, knows which kids are most likely to go down the DE path. With Sluggy, OTOH, I could just see a whole lot going on to which he just wasn't attuned because those kids weren't "the" kids for him. So, not only did Lord Voldemort emerge from Slytherin while Sluggy was HoH, but so did beaucoup de Death Eaters. Erm... that could be rather embarrassing stuff for the HoH to have been unaware of. Anyway, all that is a VERY roundabout way of bringing up the notion that I think it's quite possible that Sluggy could have been the cave potion brewer. Tom was in his inner fold, we know he discussed horcruxes with him, likely Slughorn expected great things from Tom and might have been willing to do a bit more in order to help him achieve whatever high position he expected he would eventually attain. And I think Slughorn has a tendency to focus on himself and what he wants to such an extent that things can happen around him that he might not even intend. So I'm in agreement with Jen's comment, above, that Slughorn might have "uneasily or unwittingly" assisted Tom with that cave potion. Perhaps he got in over his head, or didn't quite realize (or open his eyes to) what he was doing. Rather similarly to how he spoke *uneasily* about the horcruxes to Tom yet *did* provide him with the answers. Jen: > The next question is: Why does the story need Slughorn to make the > potion? It's easier to have Voldemort concoct his own potion and be > done with it. SSSusan: Oh, it definitely doesn't need to be Slughorn. In fact, I could quite easily see JKR offhandedly remarking, "Oh, Tom concocted his own potion for the cave." OTOH, to me it'd be much more fun and interesting if it were Sluggy. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Tue Oct 11 14:02:12 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:02:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141443 Lupinlore: > But this is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. Even if we > hypothesize that DD was dying from the potion and wanted to spare > Harry's feelings, there was absolutely no reason for DD to ask Snape > to do anything. All DD had to do was keep his mouth shut and let the > DEs kill him. Then Harry would have been blaming Fenrir, et. al., > not necessarily Snape. Nicolau: This might indeed have been DD's option if Snape had not shown up: consistent with conon here. Given that Snape did show up, this option is no longer available: the DEs were expecting Snape to do *something*. Assuming for the sake of argument that DD is going to die in 30 seconds anyway, the options are limited. DDM!Snape could not say: "Wait just a little, he will die anyway: let him die with dignity.": never mind the fact that this would blow his cover, trigger the UV and keep the DE in Hogwarts a little longer: it would give away the fact that DD and Harry knew about the horcruxes and were busy destroying them. After all, if the DD came back saying: "We went there, found DD, but he died of and by himself: must have been poisoned, or something." then Voldemort would try to find out more. Lupinlore: > Besides, how in the world would DD have communicated such a request? > Legilimency? That would be terrible writing indeed. (...SNIP...) I don't think so: legilimency here seems ok with me. This has been discussed a lot already in another thread and I have nothing to add except that I agree with the idea that it is at least plausible that Dumbledore passed a message to Snape on the tower using legilimency. Nicolau From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 15:07:22 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why No Patronus Sent- WAS: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051011150723.45335.qmail@web34907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141444 Potioncat wrote: "We've seen a Patronus cast at the beginning of HBP and it appeared to take some time to reach Hogwarts. So it is faster than an owl, but slower than floo, perhaps? But, why didn't anyone send a Patronus to the rest of the Order? Not Snape from the Tower, but McGonagall, Lupin, Bill, Tonks? No one seems to have called for backup." CH3ed: I'm assuming that you meant why wasn't the patronus sent to OotP members outside of Hogwarts, in which case I suppose the use of patronus is only limited to a short distance (Dumbledore used his to call Hagrid in GoF, Tonks used hers to call Hagrid to open the gate for her and Harry). I could be wrong, tho, since JKR says on her website that the "more reliable method" the OotP members use to communicate is the patronus (DD taught them and only them know how to do it). I just think distance may be the limiting factor since those OotP members who went to Harry's aid at the Ministry were all at Grimmauld Place at the time Snape contacted them. They didn't use the patronus to call DD or other members, but left Kreacher to tell him what happened when he came to the headquarters. CH3ed. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Oct 11 15:53:50 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:53:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nicolau C. Saldanha" wrote: > > Hickengruendler wrote: > > I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging for his life. > > Eggplant: > > I don't know, I think Dumbledore wanted to live. But if I had to guess > > I'd say he was pleading with Snape not to betray him and tell him he > > was never his friend and show that he'd been wrong about him for 16 > > years. > Nicolau: > IMO neither "DD was pleading for his life" nor "DD was > asking Snape to kill him with AK" are satisfactory. I also find your > theory less than satisfactory: if DD somehow finds out that Snape is a > traitor (before he says anything or raises his wand, mind you), > pleading "Severus, please..." is not an adequate reaction from the DD > we know. > > I add that I find speculation from DD's point of view to be much more > solid than that from Snape's point of view. We know a lot about DD's > character both from the books and from JKR's interviews. Renee : Speculating from DD's point of view looks like a promising approach. It could provide an explanation for the Tower scene that hasn't come up yet - but correct me if I'm wrong. The explanation would be, that DD willingly sacrifices himself. He knows Draco is unable to kill him (and will lose his life unless someone else does it for him) and he knows Snape will die if he doesn't kill him (how and when doesn't matter in this theory). But DD wants both of them to survive, and the only way to give both of them a chance is to be killed - by Snape. He also knows that Snape is doomed to leave Hogwarts anyway because of the DADA curse, and prefers Snape to leave alive. So, what DD requests from Snape is to become an "accomplice" to self- sacrifice. DD has lost his wand and can hardly move from the spot, so he needs help. That is what he asks Snape when he says "Severus, please...": "Severus, please help me to carry out this sacrifice."" They have discussed this possibility before, and Snape balked at the idea of having to do it. But DD won't let him of the hook, now that the situation has arisen where the sacrifice is required. Snape hates it, as the look on his face makes clear, but he keeps his promise. This explanation doesn't require an act of Legilimency (canonically debatable). It doesn't involve euthanasia, because DD *chooses* to die for others, instead of asking to be put out of his misery (which would be ethically and morally debatable and OOC for Dumbledore). The liquid in the cave doesn't have to be a deadly poison for which no cure is available. It doesn't require the events on the Tower to have been planned in advance by DD; this is just a worst case scenario. DD doesn't plead for mercy and Snape doesn't hate him, merely the deed he has to do. (AK doesn't take hatred, only the will to kill, just like Crucio doesn't take hatred, only the will to hurt.) What the heory does require is, that Snape told DD about the UV shortly after making it, and that DD reached the correct conclusion regarding what it was Draco had been told to do - he's intelligent enough to figure it out, after all. This in its turn explains why he gave Snape the DADA job, and it also explains the discussion in the Forest. It explains the agony on Snape's face when Harry calls him a coward. In short, it requires a single piece of speculation, makes a number of other speculations superfluous and answers several questions. Does it absolve Snape? Not entirely. Saving Draco and himself by killing DD remains the lesser of two evils. It is better than if DD, Draco and Snape all end up dead (I don't for a moment believe that Snape had the time to take out the DEs and Greyback one by one, at his leisure, and blowing up the tower like Wormtail blew up a street full of Muggles would be counterproductive, as it would also blow up DD.) But Snape remains a killer, whether he AKs DD or blasts him over the parapet. He's Dumbledore's man, and neither ESE nor OFH, but that doesn't make him a good guy. As I see it, this is another instant of JKR's habit to have people's wrong choices catch up with them. Ultimately, the personal no-win situation Snape faces on the Tower is a consequence of the wrong choice he made once: to serve Voldemort. Even if he repented and turned away from the Dark Lord, this doesn't undo his past. It catches up with him on the Tower: he is doomed to choose between two evils. (And that it happens when it does, is a consequence of the DADA curse, which always seems to work in a way related to the personality and history of the teacher.) It sounds like a harsh lesson, but I believe JKR is capable of including it in a book aimed at an audience of 10-15 year olds. Renee From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 16:01:32 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:01:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141446 lupinlore wrote: > Besides, how in the world would DD have communicated such a request? > Legilimency? That would be terrible writing indeed. Not only is it > unspeakably contrived, it also introduces all sorts of powers not > previously in evidence. We have no evidence whatsoever that > Legilimency can be used in such a manner -- indeed, all the evidence > we have is that it most definitely cannot be (all the evidence we > have for mental conversations is Harry/Voldemort, which is constantly > stressed as being a special case, NOT Legilimency). Even if > Legilimency can be used in such a manner, DD had only a few seconds -- > unbelievable and contrived to say he could have pleaded silently > with Severus in that length of time. > zgirnius: I have seen this claim, that DD and Snape could not have the necessary communication on the Tower via Legilimency, in a number of posts over the last few months. The more I consider it, the more it seems to me thast this is wrong. Limiting ourselves only to cases of Legilimency involving *Snape* we have everything that is needed. Clearly, DD and Snape could not have had a long involved debate on the pros and cons of the situation, or on the morality of DD's (hypothetical) request. Whether or not such is possible via Legilimency, it would (as you indicate) be a ridiculous exercise in which to engage under the circumstances. All that is needed to establish DDM!Snape, though, is for an order to be received and understood. I used the scene in HBP where Snape sees the Advanced Potions text in Harry's mind as my model. Using no more than that ability of Snape's to see images in the mind of DD, I think DD ought to be quite capable of making his wishes clear. It's a trilfe long so I will not reproduce it here. If you're interested it is in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141410 (Sorry, paste the link into your browser, I don't know how to make it a "real" link...) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 16:13:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:13:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141447 > zgirnius: All that is needed to > establish DDM!Snape, though, is for an order to be received and > understood. > > I used the scene in HBP where Snape sees the Advanced Potions text in > Harry's mind as my model. Using no more than that ability of Snape's > to see images in the mind of DD, I think DD ought to be quite capable > of making his wishes clear. Alla: I think you ARE quite convincing in 141410. I CAN buy that type of images transferring occur, absolutely. Bravo! There are some additional problems I see though even with that "conversation" First of all, what if Snape misunderstands the images. What if with the image of potion DD really wants to say something else? I don't know that he needs to drink another portion of that potion and Snape needs to bring it to him now or later? You know what I mean? Isn't it awfully risky for Snape ( if he is DD!M that is) to interpret the images in a way of him killing DD if he is not totally sure? What if that is NOT what DD wants? At least words are clearer, no? So, "images" work MUCH better with canon, but still could be ambiguous, IMO. Besides, what about timing? Only couple of seconds passed and that was MORE than one image to show. Don't you think that it was still not enough time to do so? JMO, Alla From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 15:25:06 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trial of Severus Snape - UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051011152506.51093.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141448 Magpie wrote: "But Narcissa is going to *tell* Snape what the plan is until he *stops* her by saying he already knows. He doesn't need to take a UV to get Narcissa to talk. She shows up at his house with the intention of telling him exactly what's going on and asking for help. He could just as easily let her tell him the plan and then said she shouldn't have told him, but as it happened he already knew everything she told him anyway." Elyse added: "I've been reading the chapter again, and I noticed the second time around, that it is *Snape* who offers to *help* Draco." CH3ed: My interpretation of the episode is that Bellatrix was the complicating factor in the scene, and Snape may not have known the detail of the plan at all. Narcissa was willing to tell him everything, but Bella wasn't and Snape thought that if he didn't ease Bella's suspicion she would tell it to LV. He was just throwing Bella off her suspicion of him and his volunteering to help was a maneuver to find out the plan (he had the idea that LV was trying to send someone to kill DD, but he didn't know who and how).... in a very slippery and spinney way. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 11 16:57:07 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:57:07 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141449 > SSSusan, cracking knuckles & ready to be back at the keyboard after >a weekend at The Witching Hour: > > How *did* Slughorn perform as HoH? > > It certainly *appears,* anyway, that a whole lotta DE recruiting was > going on in his house under his nose when Tom was there! I get the > sense that Snape is FULLY aware of what's happening with his > Slytherins, knows which kids are most likely to go down the DE >path. > With Sluggy, OTOH, I could just see a whole lot going on to which >he just wasn't attuned because those kids weren't "the" kids for >him. So, not only did Lord Voldemort emerge from Slytherin while >Sluggy was HoH, but so did beaucoup de Death Eaters. Erm... that >could be rather embarrassing stuff for the HoH to have been unaware >of. Potioncat: Interesting isn't it, Slughorn slipped information to Tom about horcruxes; Trelawney has made a couple of predictions about LV; Snape is the one who took the prophesy clip to LV...and all of them are at the Slug Club Christmas Party. I'd really like to get a list of all the Slug Club members from JKR. The HoH question is a good one, because when you get right down to it, we don't really see canon proof of any of the Heads knowing squat about the kids in their houses. Although I agree with you that "Snape is fully aware of what's happening with his Slytherins, knows which kids are most likely to go down the DE path" I'm not sure we have canon evidence. (Except that IMHO he placed Crabbe and Goyle in detention to keep them away from Draco.) But to the topic, Slughorn may have contributed to LV's recipe for the potion; but I'm betting or hoping that Slughorn doesn't know he did. DD didn't seem to know a lot about the potion in the cave and Snape wasn't waiting for DD with a steaming goblet of antidote in his hand. As for the Witching Hour and Accio, it suddenly dawned on me that we never discuss the HP conventions here at HPfGU. Does it all happen over at OT? Or does it not happen? Did anything else come up that would make for good topics here? From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 11 17:07:07 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:07:07 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141450 Siriusly Snapey Susan > Anyway, what intrigued me was the resounding support for Slughorn as > a pretty decent chap -- perhaps even the "good Slytherin" so many > have longed to meet. I sat in the session, looking around at all > those who felt this way, feeling vaguely uncomfortable with the > conclusion but unable to articulate quite why, beyond a notion that > his level of self-interest was awfully high. Magpie: I have to say that I think sometimes fandom, possibly in its desire to see that "Good Slytherin" makes Slughorn into a much better man than he is. Or maybe not. But to me, while Slughorn isn't a villain, what he stands for is something very real and not particularly in keeping with some of the other ideas of the book. Slughorn runs his Slug Club on the same ideas as the Ivy Leagues run their admissions (and having just read an article that broke down how that worked I'm even more convinced of this). Slughorn looks for kids that fit what he wants "Slug Club" to mean: they seem like they're going to be a success in terms of money, power and fame. This does not have to mean a special talent or good character, it just means they seem like they've got better chances of being rich and famous. He's not, as I've seen argued elsewhere, someone who is admirable because he judges on abilities and not blood or anything like that. Blood matters to Slughorn--plenty of his kids are chosen for their bloodlines first, just as the Ivy League focuses a lot on legacies (both Draco's father and grandfather were friends of Slughorn, and Draco himself would have been a shoe-in for the club had Slughorn not been avoiding DE children specifically this year). We know he buys the Pureblood superiority idea--even Harry picks up on how "surprised" he sounds at Lily's talent. He avoids the children of DEs at the moment for political reasons, but does not seem to have ever had a problem with including students supporting Pureblood ideology in the past. Exceptional Muggleborns are let in, but preference is certainly given to Purebloods from known families (is Hermione the only current Muggleborn? Was Lily the only one in her day?) There's a mixture of things Slughorn is looking for, and sometimes one thing overrules another. Neville is invited originally for his family connections, but seems to rule himself right back out by being unexceptional and awkward. Belby is also too nervous and awkward to make a good impression, and when it turns out his family connections are useless too, he's rudely ignored. Neville and Belby could both grow up to be brilliant herbologists, but it's not glamorous, so not interesting to Slughorn, I'd guess. Far from being a teacher who recognizes talent no matter who has it, Slughorn is comically uninterested in talent if it comes in the wrong person. It's ironic, really, that despite all the years of Snape's favoring Slytherin the biggest example of teacher favoritism we get is from Slughorn towards Harry. Once he's rejected someone he just doesn't care about them. Imagine being in a class where the teacher fawns over one student all the time, keeps talking about how much he liked his mother. A class where one time you're given a a hard assignment that whole class kills themselves on, and the favorite can't do it at all and gives a joke answer, the teacher still holds him up as an example! I don't know...this just doesn't seem like a decent chap at all. I don't think Harry would like it if he wasn't benefitting from it. That in itself doesn't make him a bad guy, obviously, but then there's the idea of his "helping others." He does enjoy networking, bringing his famous friends together to make them more well-connected and so himself more well-connected. But if we're looking for a Slytherin who was in any way good I'm going to have to hold out hoping for some of our fallen Slytherins who may have made greater mistakes and done worse things than Slughorn at first, but at least may also have made a decision to do something right for the right reason. Slughorn's self-interest is such that he does not make this choice, no matter how much easier it should be. This is a guy who presided over Tom Riddle's original network, has mentored any number of Death Eaters. He comes to Hogwarts in sixth year not to help anyone but for his own reasons: he wants Harry for his collection and he wants the protection of Hogwarts. DD wants him there for his own reasons as well: he wants the Horcrux memory. The thing is, Slughorn doesn't give it to him. The guy may be too passive and self-interested to join Voldemort so that by default makes him not one of the bad guys, but does it really make him a good guy? Someone who would sit on that kind of information, tamper with a memory Dumbledore has said was important to fighting Voldemort, refuse to hand it over when asked because it makes him look bad? When Harry finally gets the memory he tricks it out of a drunk Slughorn who won't remember it in the morning. Can Slughorn be that good and still 100% selfish? As a teacher doesn't he essentially stand for the very same things are troubling elsewhere--a small elite group of "winners" who hold themselves above others? When McClaggen thinks Harry should let him on the Quidditch team because they're both Slug Clubbers Harry thinks he's crazy, but in fact that's what the Club is about. Personally, I find Hermione's love of the Club a little disturbing, as well (and I like that I do). She seems to be quite flattered by the attention, and given that it's Hermione I wouldn't say the *only* reason she's there is that she's Harry's friend. But still, there's something a little humiliating in thinking that she's the one person who takes the Club seriously, while Harry's the one who knows just how Slughorn feels about Muggleborns. To put it more simply, yes Lily Potter was a favorite of Slughorn's. But you know? So was Lucius Malfoy. Honestly, I think another ironic thing about Slughorn is that one of the best things that could happen to Draco Malfoy is that, as Harry observes, Slughorn rejects him so that he has to "rely on his talent." Draco is cut off from this usual easy way to priviledge, and that can, imo, only be good for him. Actually, it's possibly even better that no matter how talented Draco is (and I do think he's always been good at Potions) he can't win Slughorn's favor, so he has to learn to be satisfied within himself instead of relying on outside praise. -m From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Oct 11 17:13:10 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:13:10 -0000 Subject: Why No Patronus Sent- WAS: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: <20051011150723.45335.qmail@web34907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141451 > > CH3ed: I'm assuming that you meant why wasn't the patronus sent to OotP members outside of Hogwarts, in which case I suppose the use of patronus is only limited to a short distance (Dumbledore used his to call Hagrid in GoF, Tonks used hers to call Hagrid to open the gate for her and Harry). I could be wrong, tho, since JKR says on her website that the "more reliable method" the OotP members use to communicate is the patronus (DD taught them and only them know how to do it). > > Hickengruendler: I don't think so. JKR strongly implied, that Snape communicated with Sirius on Grimmauld Place through a Patronus, after Harry went to the DoM. I am not sure if it ever was specifically said, but she answered this on her website when asked what communication methods the Order has. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 11 17:50:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:50:03 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141452 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Like you a cannot imagine JKR trying to tell twelve-year-olds that > it's okay that Snape killed DD because of X or Y. This is especially > the case considering her repeated statements that she is NOT out to > teach any specific moral lessons, and trying to convince her readers > that killing DD is okay because of X or Y is by definition trying to > argue very strongly for a specific moral lesson. > Pippin: I want to make it clear that I was citing triage as the reason Snape did not try to heal Dumbledore, not as the reason Snape tried to kill him. Personally, I don't believe Snape tried to murder Dumbledore, I think he pretended to, and Dumbledore died, either accidentally as a result of the unintended consequence of being blasted off the tower, like a stage stunt gone wrong, or as a result of the potion. I understand that some think that would be cheesy-- okay. But unless they can prove that JKR thinks it would be cheesy, although she had Dumbledore offer to create fake deaths for Draco and Narcissa, had Slughorn attempt to fake his death, and had Peter Pettigrew do so successfully for twelve years, that is merely a matter of personal taste. I do think that twelve year olds can understand the morality of triage, and also that under British law, the soldier who shot a mortally wounded officer in order to convince the enemy that he was a turncoat was not guilty of murder. Those are difficult choices, not the sort of simplistic explications of morality some expect to find in children's literature. But children are routinely presented with some very problematic and complex morality tales in our culture -- any child being educated in one of the Abrahamic religions will know about the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. I think the overall moral point being presented is not, "When is it okay to kill" which is not a choice most children face day to day, thank goodness, but the more general point that sometimes even the right choice may have dreadful consequences, and you mustn't let your fear of those dissuade you from making it. We can see that in Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry at the Dursleys, in his praise of Harry's decision to save Peter from being lynched, and in his decision to keep what he heard from Mrs. Cole to himself. To those with a situational view of morality, the consequences of these actions would prove they were mistakes, but it is not at all clear that Rowling has such a view. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 11 17:50:51 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:50:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141453 zgirnius: > > > All that is needed to > > establish DDM!Snape, though, is for an order to be received and > > understood. > > > > I used the scene in HBP where Snape sees the Advanced Potions > > text in Harry's mind as my model. Using no more than that > > ability of Snape's to see images in the mind of DD, I think DD > > ought to be quite capable of making his wishes clear. > > Alla: > I think you ARE quite convincing in 141410. I CAN buy that type of > images transferring occur, absolutely. Bravo! There are some > additional problems I see though even with that "conversation" > First of all, what if Snape misunderstands the images. What if > with the image of potion DD really wants to say something else? I > don't know that he needs to drink another portion of that potion > and Snape needs to bring it to him now or later? > So, "images" work MUCH better with canon, but still could be > ambiguous, IMO. Besides, what about timing? Only couple of seconds > passed and that was MORE than one image to show. Don't you think > that it was still not enough time to do so? Jen: I'd vote against legilimency for the reason that Snape could be left with images in his mind for Voldemort to discover and exploit. I don't believe Dumbledore would blow Snape's cover for anything, unless of course he realized there was no cover to blow in the first place. But *if* Dumbeldore had any shred of belief that Snape was at least on the side of destroying Voldemort, whether he was loyal to Harry or the Order, DD wouldn't risk blowing it for him. Back to the moment between Dumbledore and Snape. I learned the hard way with the gum wrappers that sometimes JKR is writing a wonderful character moment and in my haste to uncover plot clues, the intended poignancy is lost. I think this moment between Snape and Dumbledore was more symbolic than a plot clue. Both men knew exactly what the other was 'saying' in that moment without the need for legilimency. And I'm not saying they had prepared for this exact moment to take place or the like, simply that both knew each other well enough to understand what was taking place (even if we do not!). Oh, I'm not saying this well! Since we can't ever know what Snape's up to, I look at it from Dumbledore's perspective, and feel certain he understood Snape in that moment, understood what he was about to do and why. And most important, if Snape's actions required it, Dumbledore forgave him in a way Snape didn't forgive himself, from the painful look on his face in front of Hagrid's burning hut. That was the very poignant part to me, that somehow even if Snape did betray Dumbledore in the end, Dumbledore still *believed* in him to do the right thing and get the DE's/Draco out of Hogwarts and ensure Harry's safety. This isn't as exciting as legilimency, yet in a way is more powerful. That somehow these two men, from such very different backgrounds, beliefs, and agendas could look at each other in that moment and understand each other so completely, as well as know beyond a shadow of a doubt what needed to happen....now *that* would be something, to me anyway. Jen, who thinks if legilimency did pass between the two, zgirnius nailed the explanation why! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 18:02:53 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:02:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141454 Jen: > This isn't as exciting as legilimency, yet in a way is more > powerful. That somehow these two men, from such very different > backgrounds, beliefs, and agendas could look at each other in that > moment and understand each other so completely, as well as know > beyond a shadow of a doubt what needed to happen....now *that* would > be something, to me anyway. Alla: This was beaitiful and poignant, Jen. But then I think I am back to the question Lupinlore raised earlier. If indeed Dumbledore and Snape understood each other so completely why then Dumbledore needs to plead at all? I mean in this scenario, Snape knows what needs to be done, right? he can figure out that Dumbledore wants to sacrifice himself and is eager to do it right away. Why plead then? I personally LOVE your second suggestion that if Snape decides to kill Dumbledore because he betrays him ( or as I like to think because of selfish desire to survive), Dumbledore still thinks that Snape has some good in him enough to save the kids, but despite me loving Zgirnius description of the legilimency as I said upthread, I don't buy DD asking Snape to kill him in the first place. Self-sacrifice - YES,absolutely, but not tagging Snape along so to speak, JMO, of course. DD sacrificing himself for kids is perfectly IC for DD as I read him, Dumbledore sacrificing Snape is something I cannot see no matter how hard I try ( that killing hurts the soul stops me) JMO of course, Alla. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 11 18:31:54 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:31:54 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141455 > Alla: > > LOL! That was really funny the way you put it, Pippin. Snape, > ordering out for pizza, I mean. But no, I don't think that it would > necessarily be a give away to DE because I am not suggesting that > Snape should cast it on the Tower, but while he is being on the way. > I think he could have figured out that situation is really bad, no? > Besides do we know for sure how fast Patronus is? I think it is > really fast, personally. > But this was just one of the options and I think I may come up with > some other speculations for Snape having options. :-) Pippin: I hope so. Because as of now, you think it's unrealistic that Snape could realize that Dumbledore was in dire straits as soon as he saw him, whether through legilimency or other means, but you want Snape to realize that Dumbledore needs help even *before* he arrives at the tower and discovers Dumbledore is there. The Order did not know that Dumbledore was out horcrux hunting, they had no idea that he was going to show up too weak to fight; if anything they would expect him to save the day as he did at the Ministry. > Alla: > > Thanks for the examples. I think I am with Nora on this one. I > don't think we have an example of anybody else receiving dialogs in > their head except Harry, and I am not sure that was Legilimency, but > more like Harry's special connection with Voldie. Pippin: Dumbledore says, through Snape, that the visions are legilimency. The theory that the visions might not be legilimency at all made sense as long as we were trying to explain why Harry's attempts at occlumency didn't block them, but we know now that Harry is emotionally incapable of occlumency and that Voldemort is not. Dumbledore's mistakes are emotional mistakes. Although he could make a technical mistake about magic, he's most unlikely to do so -- that point was made in GoF. If he thinks the visions are legilimency, then that's what they are, IMO. What seems to happen is that when Voldemort is concentrating very hard on something outside himself (the approach of Frank Bryce as sensed through Nagini, the owl bearing the message from Crouch, the passage at the DoM, the revelations from Rookwood) Harry is able to pick up on that and receive not just thoughts and feelings but the entire sensory gestalt. Once Voldemort realized that, he was able to concentrate on the passage at the DoM, sense Harry's presence in his mind, and relay the false vision of Sirius. The only thing unique to Harry and Voldemort, according to canon, is that they can sense each other at a distance. But Snape and Dumbledore are standing face to face. Alla: So, no I am not sure at all that DD would have been able to pull of the same trick, unless of course you are saying that DD has special connection with Snape via Snape's hidden scar ( just kidding of course :-)) > Pippin: But Dumbledore *has* an unusual scar...I wonder. Seriously though, the point is made constantly in HBP and the other books that Voldemort's talents, though some of them are rare, are not unique to him. It might suit Dumbledore's purpose to let Voldemort think that he can transmit conversations only to Harry, because it wouldn't be good to let the Dark Lord find out how he can give silent orders to his people. Dumbledore is certainly devious enough to exploit this power for his own ends while endeavoring to keep it secret from Voldemort. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 18:48:21 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:48:21 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? Slug Club and DE's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > SSSusan, ...: > > > > How *did* Slughorn perform as HoH? > > > > It certainly *appears,* anyway, that a whole lotta DE recruiting > > was going on in his house under his nose when Tom was there! ... > > ...edited... > Potioncat: > ...edited... > > The HoH question is a good one, because when you get right down to > it, we don't really see canon proof of any of the Heads knowing > squat about the kids in their houses. ...edited... > > ...edited... > bboyminn: Your both forgetting one thing, in a manner of speaking, Death Eaters didn't exist when Slughorn was Head of House. That was the very beginning for Riddle/Voldemort, and while he may have been gathering loyal like-minded individuals, they were not organized into the DE's yet. At that point the DE's had no history, background, or track record. In a sense, there was nothing for Slughorn to know. Years later when Riddle re-emerged as Voldemort and created the formal DE's, and they began reeking terroristic havoc on the world then the concept of being a DE would have had some meaning, but not in Slughorn's time. In terms of Slughorn's overal performance as Head of House, I'm inclinded to agree it was pretty poor. He spent all his time fawning over his 'Slug Club' members, plotting and planning what they could do for each other, and ignoring everyone else. I suspect 'everyone else' was a far more substantial number than those in the Slug Club. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 18:49:47 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:49:47 -0000 Subject: Draco, Slughorn, and the HBP's book (Was: Was it Slughorn?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141457 Magpie wrote: > Far from being a teacher who recognizes talent no matter who has it, Slughorn is comically uninterested in talent if it comes in the wrong person. > > It's ironic, really, that despite all the years of Snape's favoring Slytherin the biggest example of teacher favoritism we get is from Slughorn towards Harry. Once he's rejected someone he just doesn't care about them. Imagine being in a class where the teacher fawns over one student all the time, keeps talking about how much he liked his mother. A class where one time you're given a a hard assignment that whole class kills themselves on, and the favorite can't do it at all and gives a joke answer, the teacher still holds him up as an example! I don't know...this just doesn't seem like a decent chap at all. I don't think Harry would like it if he wasn't benefitting from it. > Actually, it's possibly even better that no matter how talented Draco is (and I do think he's always been good at Potions) he can't win Slughorn's favor, so he has to learn to be satisfied within himself instead of relying on outside praise. Carol responds: I agree that Draco is probably good at Potions (certainly better than Harry) and I would agree with the assessment in the second paragraph if it weren't for Draco's loss of interest in school in general in his sixth year (shown in his confrontation with Snape at Christmastime). He's a junior DE whose chief concern is carrying out LV's orders and surviving. But I also agree that Slughorn's favoritism of Harry is not commendable and that Harry does not in any way deserve credit for using the HBP's potion secrets. It's extremely unfair to Hermione, who understands the theory behind the antidotes and has worked hard to do exactly what the assignment requires, to reward Harry for his "joke answer" (actually a desperation measure prompted by young Snape's rather warped sense of humor--"just stuff a bezoar down their throats"). I think your point that Harry wouldn't like it if he weren't benefitting from it is right on the money. Suppose that Draco hadn't unwisely allowed himself to be recruited by the DEs this year and that the HBP's Potions book had somehow fallen into *his* hands. If Harry found out that Draco was using someone else's old notes to get a higher mark in Potions class than Hermione (or to receive the same mark she *earned* by actually knowing the material), would he think it was right or fair? I'm pretty sure that he would regard it as cheating, and he would be right. Carol, who agrees that old Sluggy is morally ambiguous but doesn't think he made the potion in the cave From muellem at bc.edu Tue Oct 11 18:55:03 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:55:03 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? Slug Club and DE's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Your both forgetting one thing, in a manner of speaking, Death Eaters > didn't exist when Slughorn was Head of House. That was the very > beginning for Riddle/Voldemort, and while he may have been gathering > loyal like-minded individuals, they were not organized into the DE's yet. > > At that point the DE's had no history, background, or track record. In > a sense, there was nothing for Slughorn to know. Years later when > Riddle re-emerged as Voldemort and created the formal DE's, and they > began reeking terroristic havoc on the world then the concept of being > a DE would have had some meaning, but not in Slughorn's time. > > In terms of Slughorn's overal performance as Head of House, I'm > inclinded to agree it was pretty poor. He spent all his time fawning > over his 'Slug Club' members, plotting and planning what they could do > for each other, and ignoring everyone else. I suspect 'everyone else' > was a far more substantial number than those in the Slug Club. > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn Didn't Voldemort have Death Eaters at Hogsmeade waiting for him when he applied for the DADA job(the memory in the pensive)? Also, Regulus was a Death Eater, Slughorn was the head of Household at that time period - Snape was already a DE. They DID call them Death Eaters. At Crouch's trial, they asked about Death Eaters. So, they knew about them. And in SS/PS, when LV was vaporized in 1981, there was a celebration in the WW - as, and forgive me-I don't have my book in front of me, the WW had been terrorized for 11 years with LV's rule. I got the impression that Sluggy retired just as Snape took over in 1981. Which means that Slughorn WAS around as HoH at the same time as the DE's. colebiancardi From ibchawz at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 18:55:01 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:55:01 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape /Harry IS Snape./A cold equation (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141459 > Alla wrote: >because the future of WW hangs on whether Harry will be > able to retrieve all FOUR horcruxes and may I say again - Dumbledore > himself only managed TWO so far. ibchawz responds: Which TWO horcruxes did Dumbledore retrieve / destroy? I only know of ONE that Dumbledore has retrieved / destroyed - The ring horcrux. Harry actually destroyed the diary horcrux and he did this before he even knew about Horcruxes. I snipped the remainder of the post since I am, as Lupinlore put it, in the "great middle". While I can see and understand valid points brought up by each side of the debate, I can also poke holes in each theory such that none of them hold water. ibchawz - Going back into lurk mode regarding the ESE/OFH/ESG/DDM Snape debate. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Oct 11 18:59:18 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:59:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141460 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> >Alla: > > Self-sacrifice - YES,absolutely, but not tagging Snape along so to > speak, JMO, of course. > > DD sacrificing himself for kids is perfectly IC for DD as I read > him, > Dumbledore sacrificing Snape is something I cannot see no matter how > hard I try ( that killing hurts the soul stops me) > > JMO of course, > Renee: But Alla, can't you envisage a situation where the soul is hurt anyway, whatever happens? If Snape doesn't fulfil the UV and the result is that Draco is killed by the DEs or Voldemort, do you think he'd arrive in the hereafter with an unscathed soul, just because he hasn't actively killed? He'll have failed, even betrayed Narcissa and Draco (and I won't buy the argument that this doesn't matter because they're DEs), and Draco's death will hurt his soul no less than Dumbledore's, because this death can be laid at his door. (Not to mention that Harry might die, too.) Snape's soul is tainted whatever he does or omits. And if Dumbledore is aware of the UV, he knows this. So he tries to limit the damage to other people than Snape. Ren?e From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 11 19:27:40 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:27:40 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Those are difficult choices, not the sort of simplistic explications of > morality some expect to find in children's literature. But children are > routinely presented with some very problematic and complex morality > tales in our culture -- any child being educated in one of the Abrahamic > religions will know about the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. Geoff: The difference here being that Abraham was showing great faith in God because he had been promised that he would be the father of a great nation. However, he was prepared to go to the wire to obey God and show that he had faith in him. But he was never called to go the last step of sacrificing Isaac so a comparable situation to that of Snape and Dumbledore didn't actually come into play. This incident is not just in the Abrahamic religions; the parts played by Moses, Abraham and Elijah were an important part of Jesus' teachings about faith in the New Testament. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 19:34:32 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:34:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading - Forgive and Forget, or Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nicolau C. Saldanha" > wrote: > > > > Hickengruendler wrote: > > > I simply cannot see Dumbledore begging for his life. > > Eggplant: > > > I don't know, I think Dumbledore wanted to live. But if I had to > > > guess I'd say he was pleading with Snape not to betray him ... > Nicolau: > > IMO neither "DD was pleading for his life" nor "DD was > > asking Snape to kill him with AK" are satisfactory. I also find > > your theory less than satisfactory: ... > Renee : > > ...edited... > > The explanation would be, that DD willingly sacrifices himself. > ...edited... > > So, what DD requests from Snape is to become an "accomplice" to > self-sacrifice. ...edited... > > This explanation doesn't require an act of Legilimency .... It > doesn't involve euthanasia, because DD *chooses* to die for others, > ... It doesn't require the events on the Tower to have been planned > in advance by DD; ... > > What the theory does require is, that Snape told DD about the UV > shortly after making it, and that DD reached the correct conclusion > regarding what it was Draco had been told to do - ... This in its > turn explains why he gave Snape the DADA job, ... In short, it > requires a single piece ofspeculation, makes a number of other > speculations superfluous and answers several questions. > > Does it absolve Snape? Not entirely. Saving Draco and himself by > killing DD remains the lesser of two evils. It is better than if DD, > Draco and Snape all end up dead (I don't for a moment believe that > Snape had the time to take out the DEs and Greyback one by one, ...) > But Snape remains a killer, whether he AKs DD or blasts him > over the parapet. He's Dumbledore's man, and neither ESE nor OFH, > but that doesn't make him a good guy. > > As I see it, this is another instant of JKR's habit to have people's > wrong choices catch up with them. Ultimately, the personal no-win > situation Snape faces on the Tower is a consequence of the wrong > choice he made once: ...edited... > > ...edited.. > > Renee bboyminn: You've made two very excellent points. First, understanding what Snape did doesn't undo it; to understand it is not to forgive it. But, to understand it, does allow you to show some consideration for circumstances. In the end, no matter how you slice it and dice it, Snape killed Dumbledore. But killing in war operates under different rules than killing in peace time. Many times in war, great sacrifices must be made. Next, it's easy enough to say that Snape shouldn't have killed Dumbledore, but unless people have a workable alternative, it's just so much moralistic hot air. What could Snape have done? He is alone; Dumbledore is helpless, Snape is faced with four 'batttle-mode' Death Eaters (one of whom was extremely vicious and brutal) and Draco, and not much room to maneuver. He could suggest that Dumbledore is already finished and that they should just leave, but that hinges on the other DE's accepting his accessment and abiding by it. Something I think is very unlikely. The alternative is to fight them off, but he's outnumbered 4-to-1. There is a slim chance he might win, but there is a much greater chance that he will lose, and he and Dumbledore will be killed anyway. What is gained by that? Even if he wins, Dumbledore is in bad shape, so much time may have passed that Dumbledore can't be saved. In which case Snape will have lost his position in the DE's and at Voldemort's side, only to have Dumbledore die anyway. That's not good for anyone. I don't think Dumbledore implied 'kill me', I think he more likely implied 'I understand ... do what must be done'. Dumbledore understands that winning one battle is meaningless if it leads to losing the war, and even worse, losing the battle is even more meaningless when it ensures that you will lose the war. If Snape remains in the DE's and at Voldemort's side as a spy, then the Order has some chance. But with Snape dead or at best out of the DE's, the Order and the Ministry are at a terrible disadvantage. I really don't think Dumbledore is all that concerned about the DE's terroistic antics. I think he has one and only one objective in mind that is the total and utter defeat of Voldemort. All his actions are directed at that one goal, and if his death facilitates that goal, then so be it. So, I don't thik Dumbledore literally asked to die, and I don't think Dumbledore and Snape pre-conspired for Dumbledore's death. But I think in the moment both Snape and Dumbledore knew there was only one quick, easy, and EFFECTIVE way out of the situation. Dumbledore accepted that he was a casualty of war, and that this battle must be lost if the war is to be won. He accepted that Snape had to do what Snape had to do, and futher accepted the consequences of that action. No one will ever forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore; casualty of war or not, he still destroyed one of the most powerful wizard who ever lived and one of the most well liked. But, in the end, even if they world doesn't forgive or forget, they will understand. Snape will certainly be punished as I'm sure he knew he would, but it is a sacrifice that Snape is willing to make, if in the long run it leads to the downfall of Voldemort. I suspect some prison time for Snape, then a life of lonely exile, but a life none the less. Snape will probably get something like 5 years in Azkaban. But he will NOT be charged with cold-blooded murder. This was an act of war, and while still a terrible crime, it will be understandable given the circumstances. Of course, that assumes Snape doesn't die before the end. In any event, before Snape's end, I think we and Harry will understand Snape actions even though we can never truly forgive them. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 19:55:40 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:55:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141463 > Alla wrote: > > I think you ARE quite convincing in 141410. I CAN buy that type of > images transferring occur, absolutely. Bravo! There are some > additional problems I see though even with that "conversation" First > of all, what if Snape misunderstands the images. What if with the > image of potion DD really wants to say something else? I don't know > that he needs to drink another portion of that potion and Snape needs > to bring it to him now or later? zgirnius: Thanks! As to your point about ambiguity, I actually picked the images with some care in an attempt to avoid this problem. (As, hypothetically, Dumbledore would have had to in the book). My original thought was just to have DD picture Snape AK-ing him off the tower. SImple, huh? But IMO that would be pretty bizarre from Snape's POV. Hi Snape, now kill me?! So, show the Cave image first, as background. "Here, Snape, is what you need to know about the situation that you can't simply see for yourself", as it were. Snape may not understand what it all means, actually. This is the point at which he stops and shoves Draco out of the way. (The one obvious move he can make, while waiting for clarification, perhaps?) With this additional context the second image is less bizarre, see? (While it was not intended by me initially, I was very pleased how the timing of this worked into the scene as written by JKR-because it is this image that causes Snape's face to twist with revulsion and hatred. *IF* JKR envisioned something along these lines this is definitely where she'd put it!) Alla: > What if that is NOT what DD wants? At least words are clearer, no? > So, "images" work MUCH better with canon, but still could be > ambiguous, IMO. zgirnius: Oh, absolutely. (Gee, yet a different tragicomic take on the events. DD sends Snape an image to Legilimens, which Snape tragically misinterprets...I can already hear eggplant sniggering at my Snape!) On the other hand, there is no reason not to combine my Legilimency scenario with Jen Reese's "meeting of the minds", if you will... jen wrote: > Both men knew exactly what the other was 'saying' in that moment > without the need for legilimency. And I'm not saying they had > prepared for this exact moment to take place or the like, simply > that both knew each other well enough to understand what was > taking place (even if we do not!). zgirnius: I find this plausible myself, but clearly many do not. (For example, I feel both men are sufficiently logical and analytical to independently reach the same conclusion, that Snape's killing of DD is the "least evil" under the circumstances, as is being debated in the "Cold Equations" thread. They might reasonably also know each other well enough to be *sure* the other is on the same page). On the other hand, assuming Legilimency is limited to simple images (no conversation) the mutual understanding that exists between DD and Snape could help Snape to correctly interpret such a crude exchange. Alla: > Besides, what about timing? Only couple of seconds passed and that > was MORE than one image to show. Don't you think that it was still > not enough time to do so? zgirnius: Again, I believe it could have worked as I describe. I wrote my little "additions" to take place concurrently with the snippets of action from the book. So, DD says "Severus" (first time). Snape immediately Legilimenses him, and as he strides toward Draco and shoves him out of the way, he sees image one. He stops to gaze at DD, and sees image 2, causing his face to twist as described in the book. DD sees the reaction and sends image 3, while speaking aloud, "Severus...please...". Snape raises his wand... Jen wrote: > I'd vote against legilimency for the reason that Snape could be > left with images in his mind for Voldemort to discover and exploit. zgirnius: Well, this risk would have to be weighed against the potential obvious benefit of Snape killing DD. (It would tend to reassure Voldemort that Snape is *not* on DD's side). Also, there are certainly images that Snape would be hiding already. (My image three, of the hypothetical meeting well before Voldemort's fall, in which Snape, sincerely remorseful, comes over to DD's side is already on that list! And image 2, Snape AKing DD, would look very much like the same memory. Only image 1, Harry feeding green goo to DD in the Cave, needs to be hidden. But then, a dying DD might want Snape to know about this anyway.) jen: Oh, I'm not saying this well! Since we can't ever know what Snape's up to, I look at it from Dumbledore's perspective, and feel certain he understood Snape in that moment, understood what he was about to do and why. And most important, if Snape's actions required it, Dumbledore forgave him in a way Snape didn't forgive himself, from the painful look on his face in front of Hagrid's burning hut. That was the very poignant part to me, that somehow even if Snape did betray Dumbledore in the end, Dumbledore still *believed* in him to do the right thing and get the DE's/Draco out of Hogwarts and ensure Harry's safety. zgirnius: Oh, I think you are saying it excellently. And on the other hand if Snape remained loyal to DD but was trapped by circumstances like Fang in Hagrid's cottage, how poignant is Snape's situation? He did "the right thing" and can't even forgive himself for it. jen: Jen, who thinks if legilimency did pass between the two, zgirnius nailed the explanation why! zgirnius: Thanks! I am not at all convinced that it did either. But if JKR tells us in Book 7 that it did, I insist that she will not be cheating. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Oct 11 20:03:13 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:03:13 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141464 > Geoff: > However, [Abraham] was prepared to go to the wire to obey God and show that he > had faith in him. But he was never called to go the last step of > sacrificing Isaac so a comparable situation to that of Snape and > Dumbledore didn't actually come into play. > Hickengruendler: Yes, it does. Because Abraham would have done it. He raised his knife, reading to sacrifice Isaak, and *then*, when God saw, that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son for him he stopped it and made Abraham killing an animal instead. The only difference between Snape and Abraham here (assuming the Snape sacrifices Dumbldore for the greater good theory is true) was, that an outer force stopped Abraham. But if this hadn't happened, Abraham would have done it. That means, like Snape in the DD sacrifice theory, he was completely willing to sarifice a beloved person for a greater good (or in Abraham's case for demonstrating that he loved God more). That it didn't happen had nothing to with Abraham himself. From lindseyharrisst at hotmail.com Tue Oct 11 20:09:37 2005 From: lindseyharrisst at hotmail.com (lindseyharrisst) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:09:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: "So, what DD requests from Snape is to become an "accomplice" to self- sacrifice." I can't agree more Renee! I find it impossible to accept that DD begged for his life. After all, if Snape was intent on murdering him it would be utterly pointless to do so and would create a power imbalance at the moment of death that DD would not countenance if Snape really was the enemy. As he has already said by this point in the book, there are worse things than death (and one of them is begging for mercy from an evil man). The only thing I would argue with, is that DD must have known about the unbreakable vow. If he knew that Malfoy was attempting to kill him and that the penalty for his failure would be death then it would not take a lot for him to realise that another man would be sent to finish the job. It may well be Snape and there would have been a serious risk that it would have to be done in public, or at least the presence of another DE, as a test. (I don't think Voldemort trusts anyone, or ever has). It was therefore natural that DD would plan for this and expain to Snape what would be required of him. The Vow was undoubtedly a mistake - I think Snape was trapped through Bella's derisive suspiscion and Narcissa's desperation into agreeing. It was a mixture of paranoia and vanity that made him do it and I can't see him admitting to that, EVER. It was also unnecessary if DD had already come to the conlusions above, though I see that it might contribute to his inner guilt. I'm also wondering whether the soul-loss involved in murder would happen to Snape now... Snapesangel x From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 11 20:28:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:28:52 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141466 > Geoff: > The difference here being that Abraham was showing great faith in God > because he had been promised that he would be the father of a great > nation. > > However, he was prepared to go to the wire to obey God and show that he > had faith in him. But he was never called to go the last step of > sacrificing Isaac so a comparable situation to that of Snape and > Dumbledore didn't actually come into play. > > This incident is not just in the Abrahamic religions; the parts played > by Moses, Abraham and Elijah were an important part of Jesus' teachings > about faith in the New Testament. > Pippin: I meant 'Abrahamic' to include Christianity. I'm sorry if that was unclear or incorrect in any way. Since I don't think Snape did kill Dumbledore, the comparison works for me. I think Snape felt that following Dumbledore's orders to watch over and protect Draco was going to put him in a position where he might have to sacrifice Dumbledore to save Draco, never mind himself, and that's what the fight in the forest was about, with Dumbledore insisting that such a sacrifice would not be called for, and Snape saying that DD took too much for granted. There used to be a concern, though I haven't heard much about it lately, about whether Snape, with his hooked nose, his insistence on the letter of the law, and his stiff-necked attitude wasn't some kind of Jewish allegorical reference. If so, that he should be *falsely* supposed to have killed Dumbledore has more resonance for me, as a Jew, than if it turns out that he did kill him but might be forgiven. But that's just me. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 21:08:14 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:08:14 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141467 > Pippin: > There used to be a concern, though I haven't heard much about it lately, > about whether Snape, with his hooked nose, his insistence on the letter > of the law, and his stiff-necked attitude wasn't some kind of Jewish > allegorical reference. If so, that he should be *falsely* supposed to have > killed Dumbledore has more resonance for me, as a Jew, than if it turns > out that he did kill him but might be forgiven. But that's just me. > Well, I can see how a hooked nose and the insistence on the letter of the law may be associated with jewishness. (Not but this would mean that Rowling exploits anti-Semitic stereotypes, surely a wicked thing to do). But how does it follow that Snape is "falsely" supposed to be a murderer? a_svirn From muellem at bc.edu Tue Oct 11 21:17:10 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:17:10 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > Pippin: > > > > There used to be a concern, though I haven't heard much about it > lately, > > about whether Snape, with his hooked nose, his insistence on the > letter > > of the law, and his stiff-necked attitude wasn't some kind of > Jewish > > allegorical reference. If so, that he should be *falsely* supposed > to have > > killed Dumbledore has more resonance for me, as a Jew, than if it > turns > > out that he did kill him but might be forgiven. But that's just me. > > > > Well, I can see how a hooked nose and the insistence on the letter > of the law may be associated with jewishness. (Not but this would > mean that Rowling exploits anti-Semitic stereotypes, surely a wicked > thing to do). But how does it follow that Snape is "falsely" > supposed to be a murderer? > > a_svirn > Jews have been falsely accused with the killing of Jesus Christ, when in fact, it was Pilate. That could be what Pippen is referring to. colebiancardi (who actually thinks Snape might be Italian, as his first name, Severus, is very Latin/Roman) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 11 21:32:33 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:32:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141469 Alla: > If indeed Dumbledore and Snape understood each other so completely > why then Dumbledore needs to plead at all? I mean in this > scenario, Snape knows what needs to be done, right? he can figure > out that Dumbledore wants to sacrifice himself and is eager to do > it right away. Why plead then? Jen: Well see, now the moment is ruined ;). I wanted to savor my character moment, the last between these two men who have shared a long history together, much of which Harry and we know little about, without addressing exactly what passed between them. Here's a symbolic thought for the argument, though: On the lightning- struck tower card, two figures are falling off the tower. The card doesn't represent literal death, but for plot purposes one figure was Dumbledore and one symbolized Snape's fall from grace in the physical world (i.e. he's lost everything material, including other's belief in him). Both figures are required to fall for the Seeker to know the Truth; The violent crumbling of the tower clears the way for the Seeker to move forward. Carol made the very interesting point in post #141420 that "Dumbledore's big mistake, in my view, was in flying to the tower, right into the DE's trap, instead of sending Harry for Snape as he originally intended." I believe this was not a mistake, and in fact, supports the idea Dumbledore very much understood his own sacrifice might be required. He went to the one place he *knew* he would be found, and in fact, his order for Harry to leave him and find Snape was not intended so Snape could bring him an antidote or help fight the DE's, but to get Harry out of the way when the DE's and Darco ascended the tower. If Dumbledore had his way, I suspect neither Snape nor Harry would have been on the tower that night at the moment of his death, but fate required both to be present in a metaphorical sense. Alla: > Self-sacrifice - YES,absolutely, but not tagging Snape along so to > speak, JMO, of course. DD sacrificing himself for kids is > perfectly IC for DD as I read > him, Dumbledore sacrificing Snape is something I cannot see no > matter how hard I try ( that killing hurts the soul stops me) Jen: When Dumbledore flew to the tower and voluntarily lost his wand, he understood exactly what he was doing. Having Harry frozen on the tower with him was an unintended consequence. I feel like whatever understanding passed between Snape and Dumbledore was more of a joint decision (and not planned beforehand) than a pleading on Dumbledore's behalf to 'kill me now' and Snape obliging. Steve addresses this in a more literal sense in post #141462. In a symbolic sense, once Snape entered the tower he was required to be part of the plan in which two sacrifices were made. At the moment it doesn't appear Harry has benefitted in any way from the events on the tower. But he will. He will come to truly understand he is marked as Voldemort's equal and how the power he holds will help him bring about Voldemort's ruin. We see glimmers of this at the funeral. More important, to become a whole person in the symbolic sense of the hero's journey, Harry will understand Snape's purpose, both on the tower and in his (Harry's) life. Snape is his shadow self and Harry must come to terms with that Slytherin part of himself directly with Snape, or as Magpie postulated in post #141348, through both Snape and Draco. Jen From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 11 16:45:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:45:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > > So, what DD requests from Snape is to become an "accomplice" to self- > sacrifice. DD has lost his wand and can hardly move from the spot, > so he needs help. That is what he asks Snape when he says "Severus, > please...": "Severus, please help me to carry out this sacrifice."" > They have discussed this possibility before, and Snape balked at the > idea of having to do it. But DD won't let him of the hook, now that > the situation has arisen where the sacrifice is required. Snape > hates it, as the look on his face makes clear, but he keeps his > promise. > And herein is where this whole self-sacrifice scenario falls apart. The idea that Snape and Dumbledore cooked up this possibility in advance is thoroughly unbelievable. I'm not saying JKR definitely won't do it, but to do so would be the worst kind of far-fetched conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. For one thing it would amount to Dumbledore asking Snape to tear his own soul, something I don't think DD as he has been presented to us would ever do (and yes, I think that using the AK to kill DD would amount to Snape tearing his own soul even if it was set up in advance with DD's blessing). It requires DD to foresee the future, a situation that would make him much more an expert at divination than Trelawney's famous great- great-grandmother. And it would require a communication between Snape and DD on the tower that would be absolutely contrived and unbelievable, whether they are using Legilemency, words, hand- signals, mental images, coded eyebrow movements, foot-taps, whistles, bird-calls, color-coded garments, decoder rings, snatches of popular songs, manipulation of aetheric vibrations, fingernail scratching, alteration of Kirlian Auras, post-hypnotic suggestion, behavioral triggers encoded in mathematical variants of voice tone, tooth clicks, nose wagging, pre-agreed word combinations, astrologically encoded messages indicated by wand angles pointed at stars, a hidden scar on Snape's forehead, a hidden scar on DD's forehead, a wrinkle in time created by pre-deployment of time- turners, mental manipulation of the Einsteinian space-time continuum, subtle references to the non-Euclidean geometry of the tower stones encoded in the arc of DD's fingertips, and any other form of communication, possible or impossible, magical or mundane, ever invented or to be invented, ever envisioned or imagined by any person, being, intelligence, or denizen of any planet, star, dimension, world, or plane of existence in any time or space or existance either within or without of the timestream as we do or do not understand it. Lupinlore From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Tue Oct 11 19:05:29 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:05:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading / gum wrappers -- symbolic or clues? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141471 Jen Reese wrote: > Back to the moment between Dumbledore and Snape. I learned the hard > way with the gum wrappers that sometimes JKR is writing a wonderful > character moment and in my haste to uncover plot clues, the intended > poignancy is lost. I think this moment between Snape and Dumbledore > was more symbolic than a plot clue. Both men knew exactly what the > other was 'saying' in that moment without the need for legilimency. You definitely have a point, but I think there is an important difference between the two examples. My opinion, of course, but DD's pleading as it is makes no sense (for the reasons discussed above), it requires an explanation in a way gum wrappers do not. For me, the gum wrapper scene is strongly poignant. The tower scene instead is puzzling: until I can figure out what DD meant by the pleading, what exactly Snape really did and why, what precisely killed DD, the scene can not become poignant in the same way. Nicolau From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Tue Oct 11 19:23:37 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:23:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141472 > >Alla: > > DD sacrificing himself for kids is perfectly IC for > > DD as I read him, Dumbledore sacrificing Snape is something > > I cannot see no matter how hard I try (that killing hurts > > the soul stops me). > Renee: > But Alla, can't you envisage a situation where the soul is hurt > anyway, whatever happens? If Snape doesn't fulfil the UV and the > result is that Draco is killed by the DEs or Voldemort, do you > think he'd arrive in the hereafter with an unscathed soul, just > because he hasn't actively killed? He'll have failed, even > betrayed Narcissa and Draco (and I won't buy the argument that > this doesn't matter because they're DEs), and Draco's death will > hurt his soul no less than Dumbledore's, because this death can > be laid at his door. (Not to mention that Harry might die, too.) > > Snape's soul is tainted whatever he does or omits. And if > Dumbledore is aware of the UV, he knows this. So he tries to > limit the damage to other people than Snape. I agree with Renee that the sitation was such that if Snape decided to kill DD in order to save Draco, Harry, himself and remove the DEs from Hogwarts before someone else is killed, I for one would not find him guilty of murder, I would say that he had to take a quick decision in a situation of great stress and that his choice may have been the lesser evil. However, I agree with Alla: I can not see DD pleading for Snape to follow this path, especially given the "killing hurts the soul" theory. I can believe that DD would understand and forgive, yes, but not plead. JMO, of course. Nicolau From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 11 20:33:22 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:33:22 -0000 Subject: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141473 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > I think the overall moral point being presented is not, "When is it > okay to kill" which is not a choice most children face day to day, > thank goodness, but the more general point that sometimes even > the right choice may have dreadful consequences, and you mustn't > let your fear of those dissuade you from making it. We can see that in > Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry at the Dursleys, in his praise > of Harry's decision to save Peter from being lynched, and in his > decision to keep what he heard from Mrs. Cole to himself. > Hmmm. Well, as far as the Dumbledore/Dursley decision, JKR backed away from that one like a scalded cat, even to the point of tacitly rewriting canon by giving Dumbledore another speech to replace the one from OOTP that she swept oh-so-swiftly-and-soundly under the rug. As she doesn't strike me as someone who gives up on points she was trying very hard to make, I'd say that she wasn't trying to get across much of a moral lesson on that one, but had just created a problematic situation by failing to think through the implications of what she wrote -- particularly what she wrote in the midst of a difficult pregnancy and a rush to get OOTP done and off her desk. As far as the decision of Harry to save Peter, I don't see any evidence that JKR sees it as having terrible consequences. Oh, to be sure we readers see it as having utilitarian implications, but I'm not at all sure she's interested in those or wants to in any way emphasize them as part of any kind of "moral of the story." Rather, lynching people is bad, even when they deserve it, and therefore Harry was right in heading off Remus and Sirius. Here endeth the lesson. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 23:30:13 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:30:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141474 Jen wrote: -> Here's a symbolic thought for the argument, though: On the lightning- > struck tower card, two figures are falling off the tower. The card > doesn't represent literal death, but for plot purposes one figure > was Dumbledore and one symbolized Snape's fall from grace in the > physical world (i.e. he's lost everything material, including > other's belief in him). Both figures are required to fall for the > Seeker to know the Truth; The violent crumbling of the tower clears > the way for the Seeker to move forward. > > Carol made the very interesting point in post #141420 > that "Dumbledore's big mistake, in my view, was in flying to the > tower, right into the DE's trap, instead of sending Harry for Snape > as he originally intended." > > I believe this was not a mistake, and in fact, supports the idea > Dumbledore very much understood his own sacrifice might be required. > He went to the one place he *knew* he would be found, and in fact, > his order for Harry to leave him and find Snape was not intended so > Snape could bring him an antidote or help fight the DE's, but to get > Harry out of the way when the DE's and Darco ascended the tower. If > Dumbledore had his way, I suspect neither Snape nor Harry would have > been on the tower that night at the moment of his death, but fate > required both to be present in a metaphorical sense. > Carol responds: I like this a lot, actually, both your tower interpretation and your argument that flying to the tower isn't a mistake. It fits with what KJ (I think) said about the argument in the forest: Dumbledore thought he could make the sacrifice without Snape having to kill him and Snape thought DD took too much for granted. As I read it, Snape feared, rightly, that the UV and the DADA curse together would force *him* to sacrifice Dumbledore and he didn't want to have any more to do with that idea. But Dumbledore seems to have reminded him of a promise to obey, very similar to Harry's, however unwilling he was to do so. I agree completely that Snape knew each other very well, and I like your idea of a poignant last moment on the tower, but I don't think that Snape's change of expression (to hatred and revulsion) can be explained without the Legilimency, whatever the images DD sent. If it were a last goodbye, he surely would not have worn that expression. If it's a sacrifice, then I think Dumbledore is telling him that he must play his part because Dumbledore can't do it alone. Snape raises his wand only after Dumbledore speaks again and clearly he fills in the unspoken words as Harry cannot: "Severus, please. You must do this," or something to that effect. He, too, may have hoped, even after he saw the helpless and wandless Dumbledore (so different from the Dumbledore of the previous year) that he would not have to perform the sacrifice, but the moment of silent communication (I still think it's Legilimency) persuaded him against his will. Your sacrifice idea also fits with my ideas about Snape's limited choices (which I know you've read because you cited one of my posts in that thread, 141420). I won't repeat those ideas here, but if anone wants the link, it's http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141420 BTW, did you see my post on the evidence in OoP for Snape and Harry communicating through Legilimency (Harry willing Snape to see images in his mind)? It cites zgirnius's ideas and adds to them using the scene from Umbridge's office in which Harry tries to get Snape to see his dream of Sirius in the MoM. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141428 No one has responded to it (maybe it was in the wrong thread, or maybe it was too long and I put the important stuff too near the end?), but I think it does at least establish that JKR has already introduced the concept of communicating via Legilimency before HBP, and again it's Snape who's receiving the communicated message. Carol From oppen at mycns.net Wed Oct 12 00:07:08 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:07:08 -0000 Subject: Percy's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > > > One thing I'd be curious to know is just _what_ Percy was supposed > to > > say to Ron in his letter..._given that Umbridge, or someone loyal > > to/reporting to her, was almost certainly going to have a chance > to > > look the letter over before Ron ever saw it! > > > Alla: > > Hmm, why do you think that Umbridge would definitely had a chance to > look the letter over ? It wasn't a dead cert, but a distinct possibility. We know that she could fool with owl post, IIRC. As Percy's superior in rank, she has powers beyond his. Are you saying that it would have happened > before Persy sent the letter or that it would be interposed in > Hogwarts? I think you mean _intercepted._ And it could have happened either way. I don't know how the Ministry handles owl-post; it could well go through a central dispatching point. > > If you are arguing that it would be interposed in Hogwarts and Persy > would foresaw such possibility then I would say that for him the > best cause of action would be well, not to send ANY letter. Unless > of course you are arguing that the letter contains some kind of > secret message to Ron. If it is your argument, I would ask you to > clarify what kind of message it contained, because I cannot figure > out any. Yes, I would say that the letter could be read as a secret message to Ron. Basically, between the lines, we find out that Umbridge is planning changes, and that the Ministry's out to get Harry for daring to say that HWMNBN is tanned, rested, ready and about to begin his Second World Tour. We've seen Harry write a letter that looks innocuous, but would mean more to the recipient: When he wrote "Snuffles" about the new regime in Hogwarts..."our new Defence teacher's almost as nice as your mum." To someone not familiar with Mme. Black, this sounds fairly OK...most people wouldn't say that a person's mum was a shrieking, addle-pated old lunatic to their face, after all, now would they? > > I would not exclude the possibility that Persy in his mind was > looking out for Ron by telling him to stay away from Harry, but > well, it does not make him to be any less of the git to me. He's "no less of a git" for trying to look out for his brother? What would it take to make you think he's not a git? > > Ericopen: > > > > Ron, unfortunately, is Thick As An Asphalt Sandwich, and took the > > letter at face value. I wonder what would have happened if > Hermione > > had had the opportunity to read it? > > Alla: > > Again, could you clarify, please? Are you saying that Hermione was > supposed to figure out some kind of hidden message in the letter? Yes, I think she might have, if she'd been let see it. --Eric, who wonders whether wizards know about Muggle cryptography. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Oct 11 23:42:26 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD Saw the Future?-- Was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051011234226.3115.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141476 Lupinlore wrote: "The idea that Snape and Dumbledore cooked up this possibility in advance is thoroughly unbelievable. I'm not saying JKR definitely won't do it, but to do so would be the worst kind of far-fetched conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. For one thing it would amount to Dumbledore asking Snape to tear his own soul, something I don't think DD as he has been presented to us would ever do (and yes, I think that using the AK to kill DD would amount to Snape tearing his own soul even if it was set up in advance with DD's blessing). It requires DD to foresee the future, a situation that would make him much more an expert at divination than Trelawney's famous great-great-grandmother." CH3ed now: I'm wondering if all killings tears the soul. That 'canon' was provided by Slug in a specific setting -he was telling young LV about how a horcrux is created (and one is created by someone pretty evil because not only must he kill someone, he must intentionally take advantage of the tearing of his soul by making a horcrux out of it). On the other hand do unintentional or involuntary killings actually tear the soul? If I accidentally dislodge a stone on a hiking trail and it falls down and hit someone on the head without my knowledge, say, would that death tear my soul? Does one has to commit a first or second degree murder to tear the soul? Or if ones soul is torn if one cause someone else's death regardless of intention or ones awareness? (this is not saying that Snape didn't mean to kill DD. I think DD did plead for him to sacrify DD... pleaded because Snape didn't want to do it). Also, I'm wondering if DD didn't really have a mean to foresee the future in some circumstances. He seemed to know how things would turn out so well in PoA, both during the actual time and the repeat time in that book. He seemed to know when to stall Buckbeak's would be executioner from going out to the pumpkins patch before Harry had successfully led the hippogriff away, for instance, then in OotP DD told Harry he was "watching from afar" as Harry struggled to repel the dementors and rediscover his godfather. I'm hoping for a full expose in Book VII. CH3ed --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 12 00:54:59 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:54:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141477 > Carol responds to Jen: > I like this a lot, actually, both your tower interpretation and your > argument that flying to the tower isn't a mistake. It fits with what > KJ (I think) said about the argument in the forest: Dumbledore thought > he could make the sacrifice without Snape having to kill him and Snape > thought DD took too much for granted. As I read it, Snape feared, > rightly, that the UV and the DADA curse together would force *him* to > sacrifice Dumbledore and he didn't want to have any more to do with > that idea. But Dumbledore seems to have reminded him of a promise to > obey, very similar to Harry's, however unwilling he was to do so. Ceridwen: Jen's post was very moving, and I agree too that Snape and Dumbledore had a history together which would leave most communication unnecessary. I believe there was Legilimency between them, and instead of showing all sorts of pics, I would say that Dumbledore merely showed Snape their discussion, when Dumbledore told Snape that he would do it as he'd promised. That would be all he needed. They both know the content under discussion. This would fit in as well with the look of hatred and revulsion. Snape was against it when Hagrid overheard the discussion in the forest, and he was probably against it from the moment he had to think it over, after he had originally agreed. Like taking a foul- tasting medicine, one you know you'll hate, the face comes first, then the taste of it. Carol: > Snape raises his > wand only after Dumbledore speaks again and clearly he fills in the > unspoken words as Harry cannot: "Severus, please. You must do this," > or something to that effect. Ceridwen: There doesn't have to be a missing word or part of a sentence. I tell my kids to do something, if they don't, sometimes, '(Kid's name), Please' is enough reminder. It's only after this reminder that Snape raises his wand. The rest came before. Carol: > Your sacrifice idea also fits with my ideas about Snape's limited > choices (which I know you've read because you cited one of my posts in > that thread, 141420). I won't repeat those ideas here, but if anone > wants the link, it's > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141420 Ceridwen: It also fits with the battlefield scenario someone else posted earlier. I've mentioned heroic war movies, where some poor schmo is stuck out in No Man's Land, injured but not killed by the enemy, his buddies picked off as they try to rescue him. You can't have that. You can't have Order members being fought by even the most incompetent DEs (what was with that blond spinning top, anyway? he only got his own guy and the ceiling), the second-stringers or whatever. You can't have Harry Potter, The Chosen One, released from DD's spell and dropped into a nest of DEs. The only thing holding both Harry and the DEs on that tower, is Dumbledore alive. A wounded, apparently very weakened, Dumbledore, who is growing ever weaker and paling, and now even his voice has changed. Either more will die, as in the movie battle scene, or only one more will die. Carol: > BTW, did you see my post on the evidence in OoP for Snape and Harry > communicating through Legilimency (Harry willing Snape to see images > in his mind)? It cites zgirnius's ideas and adds to them using the > scene from Umbridge's office in which Harry tries to get Snape to see > his dream of Sirius in the MoM. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141428 > > No one has responded to it (maybe it was in the wrong thread, or maybe > it was too long and I put the important stuff too near the end?), but > I think it does at least establish that JKR has already introduced the > concept of communicating via Legilimency before HBP, and again it's > Snape who's receiving the communicated message. Ceridwen: I noticed. I'm never sure, since I come on-line a few times a day, if I've used up my three posts or not. So I don't answer very many. I should probably keep a tally list by the computer! It isn't clear in that scene if Harry successfully reaches Snape, or if his cryptic verbal message trips the switch. The snarky way Snape responds makes me think he did get the message and was impatient with the repetition. Harry's not cut out for Occlumency, but he's pretty good at letting people into his mind. I wonder, though, if trying to project too hard would be like shouting so loud the words can't be understood? Still, it does tend to reinforce a previous use, or at least the possibility, of Legilimency in sending and receiving messages. Ceridwen, hoping this is number three and not number four as I don't feel like dragging out the iron at this time of night. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 12 01:19:45 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:19:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading - Forgive and Forget, or Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141478 > Renee: > > The explanation would be, that DD willingly sacrifices himself. > > ...edited... > > But Snape remains a killer, whether he AKs DD or blasts him > > over the parapet. > bboyminn: >...edited.... In the end, no matter how you slice it and dice it, > Snape killed Dumbledore. Valky: I disagree that this makes sense in the tower. If all that is required is for Snape to finish Dumbledore by his hand, a coup de grace or a sacrificial casualty of war, then Dumbledore could as well die on the floor of the Tower as on the ground outside. But Snape blasted him from the Tower. Dumbledore didn't die from AK, wether Snape cast a real one without the power behind it to kill or cast a fake altogether remains to be seen, but we know that the green light and the Avada Kedavra spell is no conclusive cause of death in this case, five cases tell the story, dead sentients do NOT fly they DROP like a stone where they are hit. So we go, that if Severus Snape did not cast a full intensive killing curse but instead something that blasted DD over/through the ramparts, then Why? One thing is for sure, if he did it intentionally then he is *not* a killer. It comes down to Dumbledore's choice the moment he is in the air. Fawes did not catch him, so Dumbledore's choice is clear and Snape is vindicated of his responsibility therewith. Now I ask those clever listees who have whiled away much effort to reconstruct the Tower scene from the angles of triage, cold equations and choices of lesser evil, to consider - The same scene, the same danger, the same sacrifice. And Snape/Dumbledore choose not for Snape to deliver a lethal blow, but to send Dumbledore over the edge of the tower where he *dies secretly and unseen*, his body comes to rest far from the reach of the vileness it was once surrounded by. What are they doing? > Jen wrote: > Carol made the very interesting point in post #141420 > that "Dumbledore's big mistake, in my view, was in flying to the > tower, right into the DE's trap, instead of sending Harry for Snape > as he originally intended." > > I believe this was not a mistake, and in fact, supports the idea > Dumbledore very much understood his own sacrifice might be required. > He went to the one place he *knew* he would be found, and in fact, > his order for Harry to leave him and find Snape was not intended so > Snape could bring him an antidote or help fight the DE's, but to get > Harry out of the way when the DE's and Darco ascended the tower. If > Dumbledore had his way, I suspect neither Snape nor Harry would have > been on the tower that night at the moment of his death, but fate > required both to be present in a metaphorical sense. > Carol responds: I like this a lot, actually, both your tower interpretation and your argument that flying to the tower isn't a mistake. It fits with what KJ (I think) said about the argument in the forest: Dumbledore thought he could make the sacrifice without Snape having to kill him and Snape thought DD took too much for granted. As I read it, Snape feared, rightly, that the UV and the DADA curse together would force *him* to sacrifice Dumbledore and he didn't want to have any more to do with that idea. But Dumbledore seems to have reminded him of a promise to obey, very similar to Harry's, however unwilling he was to do so. Valky: I like what you're saying here, too, Jen. Besides, I think it's given that Dumbledore didn't mistakenly walk into the trap but knowingly and preparedly, by his saying to Draco "Yes, and No." Dumbledore quite clearly tells us, Draco *thought* Dumbledore would rush to the Tower to see who had been killed and that it worked, but it had *not* worked. Dumbledore was not there by mistake. He also says that he has known Draco was trying to kill him all year, but he didn't approach Draco for he knew it would be instant death for Draco and his family, and further he tells Harry straight to the point, that *all* of this, Draco's mission, Snapes UV, it's all *unimportant* on the scale of things. He's dealt with it. Dumbledore *had* a plan for these things, and his death was certainly part of it, it's *not* contrived or unbelievable, as some say. It's Dumbledore's own words. I really love how Jen writes that destiny had brought Snape and Harry to the Tower that night although Dumbledore may not have willed it so. I do like the thought that JKR brought this such element into the story on the tower. Valky From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 01:33:52 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:33:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141479 > lupinlore wrote: > And herein is where this whole self-sacrifice scenario falls > apart. The idea that Snape and Dumbledore cooked up this > possibility in advance is thoroughly unbelievable. I entirely agree. But the sacrifice scenario does *not* require advance planning. The circumstances are absolutely awful, and not at all anticipated by either Snape or Dumbledore. As has been argued elsewhere, within those awful circumstances, it might make sense for DD to sacrifice himself. > lupinlore wrote: > And it would require a communication between > Snape and DD on the tower that would be absolutely contrived and > unbelievable, whether they are using Legilemency, words, hand- > signals, mental images, coded eyebrow movements, foot-taps, > whistles, bird-calls, color-coded garments, decoder rings, snatches > of popular songs, manipulation of aetheric vibrations, fingernail > scratching, alteration of Kirlian Auras, post-hypnotic suggestion, > behavioral triggers encoded in mathematical variants of voice tone, > tooth clicks, nose wagging, pre-agreed word combinations, > astrologically encoded messages indicated by wand angles pointed at > stars, a hidden scar on Snape's forehead, a hidden scar on DD's > forehead, a wrinkle in time created by pre-deployment of time- > turners, mental manipulation of the Einsteinian space-time > continuum, subtle references to the non-Euclidean geometry of the > tower stones encoded in the arc of DD's fingertips, and any other > form of communication, possible or impossible, magical or mundane, > ever invented or to be invented, ever envisioned or imagined by any > person, being, intelligence, or denizen of any planet, star, > dimension, world, or plane of existence in any time or space or > existance either within or without of the timestream as we do or do > not understand it. I take it this is an aesthetic judgement. Legilimency was previously rejected by both you and eggplant in separate threads on the grounds that it would be cheating by JKR, in the sense that it would involve using magic in a way not previously established in canon. That, on the contrary, the possibility *is* established was the gist of posts such as mine and Carol's (141428). If you think that would nonetheless be unbearably cheesy, well, we just see these things differently. I'm not so sure JKR is going there, but if she did I would find it entirely satisfying. --zgirnius, who recognizes the truth of the old saying 'De gustibus non est disputandum' From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 12 03:06:46 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:06:46 EDT Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - UV Message-ID: <191.498f3ac0.307dd7c6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141480 Magpie wrote: "But Narcissa is going to *tell* Snape what the plan is until he *stops* her by saying he already knows. He doesn't need to take a UV to get Narcissa to talk. She shows up at his house with the intention of telling him exactly what's going on and asking for help. He could just as easily let her tell him the plan and then said she shouldn't have told him, but as it happened he already knew everything she told him anyway." Elyse added: "I've been reading the chapter again, and I noticed the second time around, that it is *Snape* who offers to *help* Draco." CH3ed: My interpretation of the episode is that Bellatrix was the complicating factor in the scene, and Snape may not have known the detail of the plan at all. Narcissa was willing to tell him everything, but Bella wasn't and Snape thought that if he didn't ease Bella's suspicion she would tell it to LV. He was just throwing Bella off her suspicion of him and his volunteering to help was a maneuver to find out the plan (he had the idea that LV was trying to send someone to kill DD, but he didn't know who and how).... in a very slippery and spinney way. Julie now: In Spinner's End, Narcissa appears about to spill it all, though the Dark Lord has forbidden her to speak of it. Snape cuts her off thusly: "If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape *at once.* The part where Snape says he already knows comes a bit later. But you could be right, CH3ed. Though Narcissa is stunned that Snape stopped her from speaking of it, Bella is "satisfied" for the first time by something Snape says. Still, it's odd to me that Snape stopped Narcissa "at once." As if he didn't want her to say it out loud. If he didn't know what it was all about, it seems Bella being furious at her sister--or at him--would be a small price to find out what Voldemort is up to. It makes me wonder if Snape really DID know the plan, if when he said "I am one of the few the Dark Lord has told" he was telling the truth. After all, if he is making this up, and Bella tells Voldemort that Snape claimed to know the plan, what is Voldemort going to think of Snape, lying about how much he knows? It won't do much for Snape's trustworthiness in Voldemort's eyes. *If* Voldemort did tell Snape of the plan, and Snape then told Dumbledore, then Snape would be well aware of what kind of task Draco is expected to complete, before he took the vow. He, and Dumbledore, may have expected it, or at least expected Narcissa to come to Snape for help. Whether they forsaw the Vow, especially the third provision, is arguable (I suspect they didn't expect the third provision, given Snape's hand twitch.) This makes culpability more difficult to assign, I think. Snape went in expecting to cement his relationship with Narcissa, via protection of her son. And Dumbledore was aware of Snape's intent, perhaps hoping the final result would be bringing the Malfoys over to the Good side. But it went awry when Narcissa tacked on that third provision. Snape could have pulled out of it once that third provision was spoken, but he didn't. Perhaps Dumbledore told him to do whatever he must to protect Draco, or Snape took it on himself to follow through, to avoid jeopardizing his precarious position among the DEs, figuring at the time he'd find a way to get of it later. Either way, if Snape and Dumbledore knew about Draco's task from the beginning, it's a different story. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 03:19:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:19:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141481 Jen: Well see, now the moment is ruined ;). I wanted to savor my > character moment, the last between these two men who have shared a > long history together, much of which Harry and we know little about, > without addressing exactly what passed between them. Alla: Ooops, sorry, did not mean to ruin anything. :-) But much as I love poignancy and do read first and foremost for characters and then for the plot , I agree with whoever said that in this particular situation I would like to know what exactly this character moment was all about. :) Jen: > I believe this was not a mistake, and in fact, supports the idea > Dumbledore very much understood his own sacrifice might be required. > He went to the one place he *knew* he would be found, and in fact, > his order for Harry to leave him and find Snape was not intended so > Snape could bring him an antidote or help fight the DE's, but to get > Harry out of the way when the DE's and Darco ascended the tower. If > Dumbledore had his way, I suspect neither Snape nor Harry would have > been on the tower that night at the moment of his death, but fate > required both to be present in a metaphorical sense. Alla: Jen, you write SO beatifully. Your posts are always a joy to read, because even if I disagree with the idea, it presented so well, that I can see it. So, I am not sure how I feel about other points you raised, but I want to ask for clarification on this particular point. As I said, I buy self sacrifice idea, but are you absolutely sure that this is what Dumbledore intended. I snipped your reference to Carol's post where she argues that flying to Tower was a mistake on DD's part, but even though I agree with you that DD knew what he was doing, don't you think that it is possible that Dumbledore flied to Tower PRECISELY because he intended to survive. It would have been SO much easier to die if he stayed in Hogsmeade, IMO, NO? Especially if you are arguing that DD did not want either Snape or Harry to be there. Just send Harry away, especially since DD specifically made Harry promise to leave him if he says so, and Dumbledore can die in peace. Why go to Tower in the first place, if Dumbledore is planning to sacrifice himself? I still think though that Dumbledore was talking to Draco as someone who intended to be in charge of hiding him and his family if needed, NOT as someone who intended to drop dead the minutes after. To close I just want to say how much I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you. > ibchawz responds: > > Which TWO horcruxes did Dumbledore retrieve / destroy? I only know > of ONE that Dumbledore has retrieved / destroyed - The ring horcrux. > Harry actually destroyed the diary horcrux and he did this before he > even knew about Horcruxes. > Alla: Sorry for being unclear. I meant getting the Horcrux from the cave,which DD and Harry managed together, I guess, but still DD was in charge. And you are right of course - Harry destroyed diary horcrux, which almost cost him his life. That brings me back to my belief that Dumbledore WOULD abandon his unwilingness to beg to his life in order to help Harry in horcrux hunt. JMO, Alla From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 03:16:26 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 03:16:26 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141482 JK Rowling, endlessly misleading in her books, however the careful and diligent reader can decipher the text and show to others what is hidden. Recently, and quite sadly, I have devoted considerable time to a close read of the Harry Potter books, including the two companion books and a trawl through almost every interview published with JKR and some newspaper articles regarding her to attempt to put together some thoughts on outstanding questions and possible upcoming events. My first article will put forth my view that the Big Blond Death Eater (BBDE)is none other than Ludovic Bagman with supporting material. The relevant known facts first: - (i) Bagman was accused of being a Death Eater and it is clear he was one. (ii) He played Beater for Wimbourne Wasps and England. (ii) He disappeared after the third task in Goblet of Fire and has not been seen again. We first meet the head of the Department of Magical Games and Sports at the Quidditch World Cup in Goblet of Fire. He is mentioned during the discussion regarding Bertha Jorkins's disappearance in Chapter 5 (Weasley's Wizard Wheezes) by Percy who says "Oh, Bagman's likeable enough, of course." (page 58, Bloomsbury hardback edition) Bagman is put across as unconcerend about Bertha's disappearance, however in light of this article I contend that Bagman knew all about the plot to kidnap and kill Harry throughout the fourth book and the references to his problems with the Goblins, while undoubtedly genuine, are misdirection on Ms. Rowling's part to cast suspicion away from Bagman. The relevant quotation at this point is: "Mr. Crouch has taken a personal interest ? she worked in our department at one time, you know, and I think Mr. Crouch was quite fond of her ? but Bagman just keeps laughing and saying she probably misread the map and ended up in Australia instead of Albania." This is said by Percy in Chapter 5 on page 58 of the Bloomsbury hardback edition. Now of course Bagman would try to delay anybody's attempts to locate Bertha, or at least her remains, until after the plot was carried out. Bagman does eventually send a search party, but reluctantly and no doubt he would be able to send the searchers to the wrong location anyway. The first descriptive material that is to hand regarding Bagman comes in Chapter 7 (Bagman and Crouch). In full it is: "He had the look of a powerfully built man gone to seed; the robes were stretched tightly across a large belly he surely had not had in the days when he played Quidditch for England. His nose was squashed (probably broken by a stray bludger, Harry thought), but is round blue eyes, short blond hair and rosy complexion made him look like a very overgrown schoolboy." (Page 80, Bloomsbury hardback edition) This bears some close inspection in light of the description of the BBDE in Half-Blood Prince. Bagman is powerfully built and he has blond hair. QED? Not quite as there is plenty more to come. In Chapter 10 (The Dark Mark) Bagman is encountered emerging from the tress close to where the Dark Mark is conjured and again we are supposed to believe that he is hiding from the Goblins. The relevant passage is: 'The words were hardly out of his mouth, when Ludo Bagman emerged from behind a tree right ahead of them. Even by the feeble light of the two wands, Harry could see that a great change had come over Bagman. He no longer looked buoyant and rosy-faced; there was no more spring in his step. He looked very white and strained. "Who's that?" he said, blinking down at them, trying to make out their faces. "What are you doing in here, all alone?" They looked at each other, surprised. "Well ? there's a sort of riot going on," said Ron. Bagman stared at him. "What?" "On the campsite some people have got hold of a family of Muggles " Bagman swore loudly. "Damn them!" he said, looking quite distracted, and without another word, he Disapparated with a small pop. "Not exactly on top of things, Mr. Bagman, is he?" said Hermione, frowning. "He was a great beater, though," said Ron, leading the way off the path into a small clearing, and sitting down on a patch of dry grass at the foot of a tree. "The Wimbourne Wasps won the league three times in a row while he was with them."' (Page 114, Bloomsbury hardback edition) Shortly after this the Dark Mark appears and as we later find out Barty Crouch Jnr. had conjured it. I contend that Bagman was meeting Crouch Jnr. either in furthereance of the plot or to have it explained to him and to warn him off from having Bertha Jorkins searched for too closely. When Bagman says "Damn them!" he is referring to his fellow muggle- baiting Death Eaters. It is likely that he is upset because he does not wish attention to be drawn to his Dark Lord's return until the time is right knowing about the events that have been set in motion already for Voldemort's return. The next relevant matter regarding Bagman is when he is present during the choosing of the Triwizard Tournament champions, which actually turns into a Quatriwizard Tournament. He is described as having a boyish face (page 243, Bloomsbury hardback edition, Chapter 14 - The Four Champions) and as looking rather excited when Harry is chosen as the fourth champion. Now obviously we are supposed to think that this is because Bagman foresees getting good odds on Harry so he could pay off the Goblins, and this may be partly true, however it also fits that he would be excited because the plam is now beginning to work and he knows that if he is able to guide Harry through the taskk successfully he would not only please Voldemort but also be able to clear his gambling debts. In fact it makes perfect sense that Bagman would be happy for Harry to win the Tornament and help him with the tasks, as he subsequently attempts to do, in order that he fulfil his duty to the Dark Lord. If the plan is known to Bagman, as I believe it was, then he would consider that the bet could not lose as he would know that Harry must win for the plan to succeed and Bagman is obviously confident that it will. Further description of Bagman follows in Chapter 20 (The First Task) where the text states that: "Bagman looked somehow like a slightly overblown cartoon figure, standing amid all the pale-faced champions." This is indicative of his being substantially larger than the Champiosn, all of whom, apart from Harry, are adults in the wizarding world and have to be assumed to be fully grown as I myself was at that age. This lends further support to Bagman as the BBDE in Half-Blood Prince. At this point I state that for those of you who seem doubtful of the foregoing consider that when the BBDE is come across in Half-Blood Prince Harry does not see his face at all. He (BBDE) is certainly not, as The Harry Potter Lexicon speculates, the brutal-faced Death Eater (who I believe to be Yaxley). This will be addressed in a later article. Barty Crouch Snr.'s opinion of people must also be considered and further supports this article. In Chapter 21 (The House-Elf Liberation Front) Winky says: "Mr. Bagman is a bad wizard! My master isn't liking him, oh no, not at all!" Crouch Snr.'s suspicions seem to be correct as he is correct about his own son. As the head of the Department of Magical law Enforcement during Voldwar I he is in a prime position to know the culpability of the Death Eaters. From this statement of Winky's it is taken that Crouch Snr. is far from believing Bagman was a dupe, which is confirmed by his reaction during Bagman's trial in the Pensieve. There is more significance in Winky's statement than may first appear. I contend that Bagman in some way was closely linked to Crouch Jnr., hence Crouch Snr's intense dislike of Bagman. This also links back to Bagman in the woods at the Quidditch World Cup. If I am right, and I believe I am, at least about Bagman being involved in the plot in book 4, then it would make sense that Crouch Jnr. and Bagman were closely associated and meeting prior to Bagman emerging from the woods at almost exactly the same spot Crouch Jnr. conjured the dark Mark. Throughout the Triwizard Tournament Bagman tries to assist Harry so noticeably that Harry wonders why he is not trying to assist the other champions. Bagman would do this because he wants Harry to win and go to Voldemort. He also disappears before the Death eaters congregate, as George tells us in Chapter 37 (The Beginning)on page 635 of the Bloomsbury hardback edition: "So Bagman had to run for it. Right after the third task." This would give him time to get outside the Hogwarts grounds and Apparate to the Little Hangleton graveyard with the other Death Eaters. Misdirection is given in that George speculates that Bagman ran because of the Goblins, whereas it is more plausible that he did not want to miss his master's return. Back to description of Bagman, and yes, the article is not far from its end, we find that during Chapter 30 (The Pensieve) during his trial Bagman is described as: "tall and lean and muscly" (page 514, Bloomsbury hardback edition). This description again lends weight to my view that Bagman is the BBDE in Half-Blood Prince. Another thought is that during the period from Bagman's disappearance to his re-emergence in Half-Blood Prince is a lapse of close to two years. He would have been living on the run and had plenty of time to lose the excess weight he had picked up and regain his muscularity and stature. If he were really either the coward or oathbreaker then surely he would have been located and killed and his demise commented upon somewhere in the wizarding world. It never is, which reinforces me in my belief that Bagman is a loyal Death Eater through and through. One final piece of fun evidence regarding Bagman as the BBDE is contained in Quidditch Through the Ages by Kennilworthy Wisp (page 52, Bloomsbury hardback edition) where the Bludger Backbeat is described thus: "A move by which the Beater strikes the Bludger with a backhanded club swing, sending it behind him or her rather than in front. Difficult to bring off with precision but excellent for confusing opponents." This fits in well with the BBDE's actions during the fight at Hogwarts where he is firing off spells all over the place, and including I contend behind him so that his aim is not necessarily perfect. For completeness sake the first reference to the BBDE is on page 558 of the Bloomsbury hardback edition of Half-Blood Prince in Chapter 28 (Flight of the Prince) Many further articles are planned and when I have a free and clear few hours I will write and post another. These will include articles on the DADA position, the brutal-faced Death Eater (which will be short) and the missing 24 hours, amongst several others. Comments would be welcome. gav_fiji. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 12 03:51:28 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:51:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco, Slughorn, and the HBP's book (Was: Was it Slughorn?) References: Message-ID: <013301c5cee0$3a715830$8b7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141483 > Magpie wrote: >> Actually, it's possibly even better that no matter how talented > Draco is (and I do think he's always been good at Potions) he can't > win Slughorn's favor, so he has to learn to be satisfied within > himself instead of relying on outside praise. > > Carol responds: > I agree that Draco is probably good at Potions (certainly better than > Harry) and I would agree with the assessment in the second paragraph > if it weren't for Draco's loss of interest in school in general in his > sixth year (shown in his confrontation with Snape at Christmastime). > He's a junior DE whose chief concern is carrying out LV's orders and > surviving. Magpie: Just wanted to jump back in and agree with you--I hadn't realized how that sounded (like the implication that Draco was a great student being ignored). I don't think he is all that in the class; he seems competent enough, but not outstanding. I meant that it seemed important that even if Draco was outstanding in the class it wouldn't matter given his father being a DE, and for Draco, who has been raised to put far too much stock in personal connections and the family name, it's maybe good for him to just be invisible so he can't even be tempted to try that route. (He does try once, in bringing up his grandfather, and it gets him nowhere.) That seems to be a sort of theme of his story in HBP anyway, the way he's cut off from all of his usual support systems. I think that was really the only way to get him to even start to find out who he could potentially be. -m From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 12 04:00:56 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:00:56 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's family (was Re: Dumbledore's pleading) Message-ID: <103.6bb65931.307de478@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141484 Jen: Oh, I'm not saying this well! Since we can't ever know what Snape's up to, I look at it from Dumbledore's perspective, and feel certain he understood Snape in that moment, understood what he was about to do and why. And most important, if Snape's actions required it, Dumbledore forgave him in a way Snape didn't forgive himself, from the painful look on his face in front of Hagrid's burning hut. That was the very poignant part to me, that somehow even if Snape did betray Dumbledore in the end, Dumbledore still *believed* in him to do the right thing and get the DE's/Draco out of Hogwarts and ensure Harry's safety. This isn't as exciting as legilimency, yet in a way is more powerful. That somehow these two men, from such very different backgrounds, beliefs, and agendas could look at each other in that moment and understand each other so completely, as well as know beyond a shadow of a doubt what needed to happen....now *that* would be something, to me anyway. Julie now: To take this subject in a completely different direction (that is, the subject of how well Dumbledore and Snape seem to understand each other in HBP), I've been wondering what JKR meant when she said Dumbledore's family would be a good avenue to explore. When it comes to Dumbledore's family, so far we are only aware of one person who qualifies--Abelforth, Dumbledore's brother. I do suspect Abelforth will have some part in Book 7. If Dumbledore's family only consists of Abelforth, however, this seems a very narrow avenue to explore. What if there are other Dumbledores? Or other relatives not necessarily named Dumbledore (from the maternal side of the family)? For instance, what if the Dumbledores and the Princes are closely related, much like the Blacks and Malfoys? Now *that* would be an interesting avenue to explore! And so I have a theory to present ;-) My theory is that Eileen Prince is related to the Dumbledores. Perhaps her mother was a Dumbledore (an aunt, or a cousin). Her mother married a Prince, then Eileen married a Snape (a Muggle no less), and eventually came little Severus, cousin once(twice?)-removed or even great-nephew to Albus and Abelforth. A blood relationship isn't necessary to explain Dumbledore's actions in regards to Snape, or the strong connection the two seem to have (especially in HBP), but it does provide an added dimension to various moments in the books--Dumbledore's concern for Snape's welfare, Snape coming "back" to the Order (which implies a previous connection), the ease with which Dumbledore accepts Snape--warts and all--and that repeatedly drilled in "complete" trust he has in Snape. We've been trying to figure out why Dumbledore trusts Snape, assuming it's something Snape did or said, or something that was done to Snape, which convinced Dumbledore to trust him. But maybe it's not that at all; maybe Dumbledore trusts Snape because of WHO he is. And, yes, I know a blood relationship doesn't guarantee true loyalty or affection--just look at the Blacks, or the Dursleys with Harry. But what it might guarantee is that Dumbledore *knows* Snape very well, far better than we might have suspected-- knows all about Snape's family, his father, his home life, his hopes and dreams, etc. A blood relationship could also explain a few other things, such as why Eileen Prince (aka Irma Pince) was brought to Hogwarts (presumably to protect her). It also would explain why Dumbledore seems able to rebuke Snape when his behavior goes too far, yet Snape shows no resentment of Dumbledore. And why Dumbledore seems determined to believe in Snape's redemptive character. Maybe also why Snape seems jealous at times of Harry's relationship with Dumbledore. (That's *my* relative, not yours!) Plus, this could be a reason why Voldemort continues to hold Snape in such high esteem, even with Snape's slithery ways and avoidance of doing any dirty work. To have turned a relative of Dumbledore's to the dark side would be a coup indeed, and Voldemort just can't give up the idea of that victory! Again, I know that none of this is necessary to explain Dumbledore's behavior vis-a-vis Snape. Harry's not a relative (or if he is, that's another post!), and Dumbledore is certainly as fond of Harry as Snape, if not more. But it does give that added dimension to their relationship, and some additional poignancy to the Tower scene. Julie (Trying to recall, does Dumbledore call any of the other Hogwarts professors by their first names on a regular basis?) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Nanagose at aol.com Wed Oct 12 04:13:10 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:13:10 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141485 Christina: This is an extremely well thought-out and supported article. I like your theory- after all, it really annoyed me that the blond Death Eater isn't given a name (most of the others are named, even if it's just in passing). However, I do a have a major reservation about it... gav_fiji: > At this point I state that for those of you who seem doubtful of the > foregoing consider that when the BBDE is come across in Half-Blood > Prince Harry does not see his face at all. He (BBDE) is certainly > not, as The Harry Potter Lexicon speculates, the brutal-faced Death > Eater (who I believe to be Yaxley). This will be addressed in a > later article. Christina: Rereading the end of HBP, it isn't really clear whether or not Harry sees the blond Death Eater's face. (HBP, Scholastic, pg 599) He launched himself after them but his foot caught on something, and next moment he was lying across someone's legs. Looking around, he saw Neville's pale, round face flat against the floor. ...snip dialogue... ...said Harry, aiming a hex from the floor at the enormous blond Death Eater who was causing most of the chaos. The man gave a howl of pain as the spell hit him in the face: He wheeled around, staggered, and then pounded away after the brother and sister. (end quote) So Harry, having tripped over Neville (poor Neville), shoots off a hex at the blond Death Eater, and it hits him in the face. Now, I *suppose* you could claim that Harry was still looking down at the ground or at Neville and blindly aimed for the BBDE, but to me, it sounds much more likely that Harry looked up, saw the BBDE, and hexed him. Since the hex hit his face, he must have been facing towards Harry. Even if Harry didn't see the BBDE at all, someone else did, who most definitely should have recognized him if he *were* our dear Ludo: Tonks. The BBDE is first described as being in a battle with Tonks, who is an Auror and works at the ministry. She says in the beginning of OotP that she "just qualified a year ago," meaning she worked in the MoM during the events of GoF, while Ludo held office. Now I realize that Tonks probably doesn't know everybody that works in the building, but you would think that Aurors would know the heads of all of the departments. Not to mention the fact that Tonks seems to be quite the Quidditch fan herself. She is highly impressed with Harry's Firebolt, and mentions that she owns a broom as well. I would be hard-pressed to believe that Tonks could be locked in battle with Ludo Bagman, star Quidditch player and an (former) officer at Tonks's workplace, without recognizing him. gav_fiji > Many further articles are planned and when I have a free and clear > few hours I will write and post another. These will include articles > on the DADA position, the brutal-faced Death Eater (which will be > short) and the missing 24 hours, amongst several others. Christina: Yesss, DADA speculation and the missing 24 hours. My favorites. Christina From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 05:55:53 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 05:55:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledores pleading...easy/right Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141486 Yes, I've read through the posts.... However, one question sticks in my mind... What on earth would Dumbledore plead for?!? I can only come up with one answer... At the end of OOP DD makes a statement concerning, "doing what is easy....and doing what is right"... Did Snape remember Cedric? *grin* So this leads me to wonder if snape's actions determine whether he did what was easy or what was right... I might have headed towards, "what is right"....if it had not been for DD's speech to Draco telling him he could go into hiding...I'm sure Snape knew of this already given Sirius' fate..(is there someone else that led Snape to the action he took? Perhaps Irma Pince..anagram I'm a Prince?)... I think snape may have had too much emotional turmoil to make the appropriate decision. (or some of you may argue that he had).. This makes excellent sense when we consider his behavior towards Harry during Snapes exit from Hogwarts; and Snape's reaction to being called a coward. Snape truly did believe he made the right decision...yet I would argue that Snape simply didn't have as much trust as DD did in him... Wouldn't the "right" thing for Snape to do would be to go into hiding with Draco and Family???(I think DD would have been able to fake his death...so did DD no know about the UV?!?) OR Was the right thing to save DD alone... OR Was the right thing to save only Draco.. OR Was the right thing for Snape to do was to apparate and save only himself so he could continue to spy for the order...(seeing as DD mumbled all the countercharms to remove the protective spells that allowed Harry and DD to fly over the walls..apparation may well have been possible.) OR Did Snape kill DD because he did what was right? Doddie (who thinks this may be the only plausible reason DD would PLEAD-- and Harry was froze..to watch Snape's decision...DD wasn't so concerned about Harry's safety as he stated the famous line, "I am not worried, I am with you." not long before said pleading scene. Hence, DD froze Harry to bear witness to the decisions Draco and Snape made.) From oppen at mycns.net Wed Oct 12 06:26:33 2005 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:26:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141487 My own take on Dumbledore's death(?) up on the tower is that if I were cornered by Death Eaters, a nice, quick, painless-so-far-as-we-know Avada Kedavra would be much more to my taste as a way to shuffle off this mortal coil and join the Eavenly Choir Invisibule than being dragged off alive to play "Twenty Questions" with Lord Voldemort, with Bellatrix Lestrange encouraging my participation with her favorite Unforgivable Curse. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 12 06:30:47 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:30:47 -0000 Subject: Wizarding nationalities (was: Importance of Audience ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141488 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > colebiancardi > (who actually thinks Snape might be Italian, as his first name, > Severus, is very Latin/Roman) Geoff: I think that there are several names in HP which can be linked to Latin or Greek roots which I do not think are necessarily indicators of nationality. In addition to Severus, examples which spring to mind include Minerva, Albus, Hermione, Dedalus, Draco and Lucius - which is not meant to be an exhaustive list by any means. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 06:36:39 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:36:39 -0700 Subject: It wasn't Slughorn Message-ID: <700201d40510112336q487bb20bhfe9421b463a623b3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141489 Or so I think. . Slughorn said of Sirius that he had hoped to have him in his House because he wanted the set of Blacks. By guess is that Regulus was quite accomplished for Slughorn to want Sirius. Maybe Regulus was quite good at potions. It would make a good tie to the Locket. Regulus made the potion for Voldie. He probably knew the antidote which would make it easy for him to steal the Locket. . Or I could be wrong... . Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 12 08:03:47 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:03:47 -0000 Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: <20051011234226.3115.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141490 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Michell Thitathan wrote: > > > Lupinlore wrote: "The idea that Snape and Dumbledore cooked up this possibility in advance is thoroughly unbelievable. I'm not saying JKR definitely won't do it, but to do so would be the worst kind of far-fetched conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. For one thing it would amount to Dumbledore asking Snape to tear his own soul, something I don't think DD as he has been presented to us would ever do (and yes, I think that using the AK to kill DD would amount to Snape tearing his own soul even if it was set up in advance with DD's blessing). > CH3ed now: I'm wondering if all killings tears the soul. That 'canon' was provided by Slug in a specific setting -he was telling young LV about how a horcrux is created (and one is created by someone pretty evil because not only must he kill someone, he must intentionally take advantage of the tearing of his soul by making a horcrux out of it). Elyse: I have asked this question before as well. This is precisely my contention with the whole Killing-tears-the-soul so called "canon". Slughorn told Riddle that in order to create a horcrux, you have to murder someone. This was so that you could use the death of another person to harness your soul piece to the object.Nowhere is it said that *every* killing rips the soul. And if this was the case, Voldemort would have his soul in any number of pieces by now. He has loads of people. GH itself would not have happened. Lily and James' deaths had already torn his soul. The significance of the magical power inherent in the number seven would be lost. I also like the point raised about indirect killings ripping the soul. Does this mean that the bridge that was destroyed by the DE's at the start of the book killing a lot of Muggles caused their souls to be broken down into fragments? Did Emmeline Vance and Amelia Bones contribute to the number of torn soul pieces in the WW? Elyse, who has a rather morbid interest in the mechanics of soul splitting From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Oct 12 08:24:34 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:24:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nicolau C. Saldanha" wrote: > > > >Alla: > > > DD sacrificing himself for kids is perfectly IC for > > > DD as I read him, Dumbledore sacrificing Snape is something > > > I cannot see no matter how hard I try (that killing hurts > > > the soul stops me). > > > Renee: > > But Alla, can't you envisage a situation where the soul is hurt > > anyway, whatever happens? If Snape doesn't fulfil the UV and the > > result is that Draco is killed by the DEs or Voldemort, do you > > think he'd arrive in the hereafter with an unscathed soul, just > > because he hasn't actively killed? He'll have failed, even > > betrayed Narcissa and Draco (and I won't buy the argument that > > this doesn't matter because they're DEs), and Draco's death will > > hurt his soul no less than Dumbledore's, because this death can > > be laid at his door. (Not to mention that Harry might die, too.) > > > > Snape's soul is tainted whatever he does or omits. And if > > Dumbledore is aware of the UV, he knows this. So he tries to > > limit the damage to other people than Snape. > > > I agree with Renee that the sitation was such that if Snape decided > to kill DD in order to save Draco, Harry, himself and remove the DEs > from Hogwarts before someone else is killed, I for one would not > find him guilty of murder, I would say that he had to take a quick > decision in a situation of great stress and that his choice may have > been the lesser evil. However, I agree with Alla: I can not see DD > pleading for Snape to follow this path, especially given the > "killing hurts the soul" theory. I can believe that DD would > understand and forgive, yes, but not plead. JMO, of course. > Renee: Well, if Jesus can say to Judas: `Do what you have to do' - and I assume we all know what it is Judas did - , I believe DD can ask Snape to kill him, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was what JKR had in mind. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Oct 12 08:50:56 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:50:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > > > > > > > So, what DD requests from Snape is to become an "accomplice" to > self- > > sacrifice. DD has lost his wand and can hardly move from the spot, > > so he needs help. That is what he asks Snape when he > says "Severus, > > please...": "Severus, please help me to carry out this sacrifice."" > > They have discussed this possibility before, and Snape balked at > the > > idea of having to do it. But DD won't let him of the hook, now > that > > the situation has arisen where the sacrifice is required. Snape > > hates it, as the look on his face makes clear, but he keeps his > > promise. > > > > And herein is where this whole self-sacrifice scenario falls apart. > The idea that Snape and Dumbledore cooked up this possibility in > advance is thoroughly unbelievable. I'm not saying JKR definitely > won't do it, but to do so would be the worst kind of far-fetched > conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. For one thing it would amount to > Dumbledore asking Snape to tear his own soul, something I don't > think DD as he has been presented to us would ever do (and yes, I > think that using the AK to kill DD would amount to Snape tearing his > own soul even if it was set up in advance with DD's blessing). It > requires DD to foresee the future, a situation that would make him > much more an expert at divination than Trelawney's famous great- > great-grandmother. Renee: It doesn't take divination, nor a cooked up scenario, just Snape and DD discussing a number of possible developments in advance. And as I wrote in another post, causing Draco's death (and more or less committing suicide by UV) by not killing DD will damage Snape's soul just as well. You can't imagine DD asking Snape to kill him; I can't imagine DD asking Snape to sacrifice Draco. If it helps, you can go with the theory (Pippin's?) that though Snape said the words Avada Kedavra, he used a silent spell to trhow DD from the Tower, and that this was the ultimate cause of DDs death. But actually, I believe DD is capable of thinking so far outside of the book that he considers an AK forgivable if it's the only way to prevent the great cause, vanquishing Voldemort, from foundering. Especially in a war situation, where peacetime laws do not always apply. But if you dislike the idea of too much divination and cooking up plans, what do you make of DD giving the DADA position to Snape, while knowing it is cursed? He must at least have planned to get rid of his master spy, one would think. Or do you suppose DD did it without thinking ahead? Lupinlore: > And it would require a communication between > Snape and DD on the tower that would be absolutely contrived and > unbelievable, whether they are using Legilemency, words, hand- > signals, mental images, coded eyebrow movements, foot-taps, > whistles, bird-calls, color-coded garments, decoder rings, snatches > of popular songs, manipulation of aetheric vibrations, fingernail > scratching, alteration of Kirlian Auras, post-hypnotic suggestion, > behavioral triggers encoded in mathematical variants of voice tone, > tooth clicks, nose wagging, pre-agreed word combinations, > astrologically encoded messages indicated by wand angles pointed at > stars, a hidden scar on Snape's forehead, a hidden scar on DD's > forehead, a wrinkle in time created by pre-deployment of time- > turners, mental manipulation of the Einsteinian space-time > continuum, subtle references to the non-Euclidean geometry of the > tower stones encoded in the arc of DD's fingertips, and any other > form of communication, possible or impossible, magical or mundane, > ever invented or to be invented, ever envisioned or imagined by any > person, being, intelligence, or denizen of any planet, star, > dimension, world, or plane of existence in any time or space or > existance either within or without of the timestream as we do or do > not understand it. > > Renee: An impressive list! I couldn't think of any missing possibilities. Except that all it takes is eye contact between Snape and DD to confirm this *is* the worst-case scenario they've discussed in advance. And DD said `please' because he knew Snape was reluctant (see the discussion overheard by Hagrid) but wanted him to make the choice, instead of ordering him to kill. Ren?e From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 12 09:30:04 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:30:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141493 Jen: Since we can't ever know what Snape's > up to, I look at it from Dumbledore's perspective, and feel certain > he understood Snape in that moment, understood what he was about to > do and why. And most important, if Snape's actions required it, > Dumbledore forgave him in a way Snape didn't forgive himself, from > the painful look on his face in front of Hagrid's burning hut. That > was the very poignant part to me, that somehow even if Snape did > betray Dumbledore in the end, Dumbledore still *believed* in him to > do the right thing and get the DE's/Draco out of Hogwarts and ensure > Harry's safety. > Elyse: Maybe youre right. My natural expectation of Dumbledore's death was him giving a speech reminiscent of the one he gave at the end of GoF, urging everyone to follow the right path. Seeeing as it was Snape he was talking to, I expected this even more since we have reason to believe that Snape is not truly on either side. But I defer to your idea that even if Snape did betray DD he would have faith in Snape to get the DE's out of Hogwarts with as little damage as possible. We have always seen Snape through Harry's filter and admittedly while we can we can believe that Snape is a very powerful and intelligent wizard, we have been given no indication as to any latent good qualities he might possess, courage and integrity being examples. But Dumbledore did. I do not know if loyalty was one of the good qualities he had, but DD who sent Snape to LV as a spy never stooped trusting him, never feared that he may succumb to the temptations of the Dark side, seemed to think that Snape would always be on the Light side. If this illusion was shattered on the tower, it still would not, I think , erase all the good qualities DD saw in him. Maybe this is what went through his mind on the tower. Maybe he did realise how events would have turned out, and he put his trust in Snape once again, and believed in him to take the DE's out of Hogwarts with minimal damage and hence, the "Severus, please..." >Jen: This isn't as exciting as legilimency, yet in a way is more > powerful. That somehow these two men, from such very different > backgrounds, beliefs, and agendas could look at each other in that > moment and understand each other so completely, as well as know > beyond a shadow of a doubt what needed to happen....now *that* would > be something, to me anyway. > Elyse: That certainly is something! The greatest wizard in the world, and all he stood for- nobility, goodness, humour alongside the greatest Occlumens in the world, a Dark wizard at heart and torn between loyalties. It does make a nice contrast, and IMO would make the poignancy factor rocket sky high if Snape really was DDM all along, "through and through". I read a thread earlier about JKR saying DD had no equal, no confidante, and while I'm sure she was talking about women there, my mind immediately jumped to Voldemort and Snape. I think that would make it especially ironic, if all three were of equal caliber. There would be Dumbledore himself, great, good, selflessly noble, acknowledged as the greatest wizard in the world because he chose the Light side. And on the other hand you would have Voldemort as the personification of the Dark side because that was the path he chose , and hence became feared above all others. And what of Snape? The positions of ultimate evil and epitome of good had been taken, and hence he had to be a subordinate, a follower, second in rank, a right hand man no matter which side he chose. Which is why the spy position was the ideal one for him. It made him independant of picking sides, and gave him independance. So maybe Snape was DD's equal, his confidante, if he was on the Light side. And maybe this was the reason that DD sacrificed himself. JKR already stated the Snape had been loved by someone, and I am convinced that this person was DD. (In a menter or father /son way, not suggesting Gay!DD or Homosexual!Snape here).And thus we arrive at the tower with DD's abiding love for both Harry and Snape. Wouldnt he sacrifice himself if this really was the case? He would win the war and stll die for the people he cared about Elyse From jamess at climaxgroup.com Wed Oct 12 10:51:09 2005 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:51:09 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Every killing tears the soul? Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD89@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 141494 The way I always saw this is that the killing does rip the soul, but both parts would stay where they where and maybe heal a bit (in an imperfect scar tissue kind of way). The horcrux creation takes advantage of a fresh rip to physically separate the broken piece from the remainder. -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of ellecain Sent: 12 October 2005 09:04 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Every killing tears the soul? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Michell Thitathan wrote: > > > Lupinlore wrote: "The idea that Snape and Dumbledore cooked up this possibility in advance is thoroughly unbelievable. I'm not saying JKR definitely won't do it, but to do so would be the worst kind of far-fetched conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. For one thing it would amount to Dumbledore asking Snape to tear his own soul, something I don't think DD as he has been presented to us would ever do (and yes, I think that using the AK to kill DD would amount to Snape tearing his own soul even if it was set up in advance with DD's blessing). > CH3ed now: I'm wondering if all killings tears the soul. That 'canon' was provided by Slug in a specific setting -he was telling young LV about how a horcrux is created (and one is created by someone pretty evil because not only must he kill someone, he must intentionally take advantage of the tearing of his soul by making a horcrux out of it). Elyse: I have asked this question before as well. This is precisely my contention with the whole Killing-tears-the-soul so called "canon". Slughorn told Riddle that in order to create a horcrux, you have to murder someone. This was so that you could use the death of another person to harness your soul piece to the object.Nowhere is it said that *every* killing rips the soul. And if this was the case, Voldemort would have his soul in any number of pieces by now. He has loads of people. GH itself would not have happened. Lily and James' deaths had already torn his soul. The significance of the magical power inherent in the number seven would be lost. I also like the point raised about indirect killings ripping the soul. Does this mean that the bridge that was destroyed by the DE's at the start of the book killing a lot of Muggles caused their souls to be broken down into fragments? Did Emmeline Vance and Amelia Bones contribute to the number of torn soul pieces in the WW? Elyse, who has a rather morbid interest in the mechanics of soul splitting 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 12 11:36:08 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:36:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Just send Harry away, especially since DD specifically made Harry > promise to leave him if he says so, and Dumbledore can die in peace. > Why go to Tower in the first place, if Dumbledore is planning to > sacrifice himself? Pippin: Because the purpose of the sacrifice, IMO, was to save Draco and to confirm to Voldemort that Snape was not Dumbledore's man. Merely dying would leave Draco thinking that he was an incompetent murderer rather than a reluctant one, and Voldemort thinking that Snape had managed to slither aside once again. Destroying the horcruxes will not bring Harry any nearer to being able to defeat Voldemort in combat -- he will still be an inferior duellist, crippled by his inability to close his mind. His only hope is a secret weapon, and that weapon, IMO, is Severus Snape, a weapon so secret that Harry himself has no idea what it is, just as he had no idea that the wands would lock or that Voldemort's attempt to possess him would fail. Alla: > I still think though that Dumbledore was talking to Draco as someone > who intended to be in charge of hiding him and his family if needed, > NOT as someone who intended to drop dead the minutes after. Pippin: Oh, that would inspire loads of confidence in Draco -- "It happens I am going to be dropping dead in a few moments Draco, but my friends in the Order will be sure you had nothing to do with it and will be happy to help you and your mum go into hiding." Right. All the same, Dumbledore doesn't say *he* can protect Draco. He says that he can *help* him (true) and that he can send members of the Order to Draco's mother that night (also true, since Harry is there to relay the order), but he says that *we* can hide Draco and *we* can protect Draco's father too. Dumbledore died with a contented look on his face, so he must have got his request. I refuse to believe that he spent his dying breath saying something that wasn't important. When a major character falls dead with a cryptic comment on his lips, the reader is entitled to an explanation, whether the comment is "rosebud" or "Severus, please." Neither the most obvious answer (if so, then why be cryptic at all?) nor a lack of explanation will do. If JKR made him sound weak merely to make his death more pathetic, it would be a betrayal, IMO, far more grievous than any treachery in her books. Pippin "The graveyards are full of indispensable men" -- Charles DeGaulle From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 04:46:22 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:46:22 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141496 gav_fiji (goddlefrood for future reference, forgot to sign article) Thank you for your feedback Chritina, I am quietly confident that I will be right about Bagman as BBDE, although obviously time will tell. I believe the most compelling evidence is that Bagman was missing for two years and may have somewhat changed in appearance (facial hair, length of hair etc.). As a lawyer I would have to say that the evidence you present of Harry having seen BBDE' face would not stand upo in Court although your point regarding Tonks is well taken. Tonks may not have seen Bagman except in passing is all I could say and once again Bagman's appearance would have changed in two years as I describe in my article from an overweight slob to his former lean muscly self. Over to you Goddlefrood From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 12:31:56 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:31:56 -0000 Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530634DD89@mimas> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141497 > > Elyse: > I have asked this question before as well. This is precisely my > contention with the whole Killing-tears-the-soul so called "canon". > Slughorn told Riddle that in order to create a horcrux, you have to > murder someone. This was so that you could use the death of another > person to harness your soul piece to the object.Nowhere is it said > that *every* killing rips the soul. Finwitch: In addition, I remember Albus Dumbledore telling Harry that to create a Horcrux, it takes unjustified killing for the soul to be ripped apart. Killing in self-defence or in defence of another is justified. Killing an innocent is not, so anyone slaying unicorn is cursed and Centaurs never attack foals... It's not every killing, of course - it's only the unjustified killings that tear the soul. Of course, one must be very careful as to say what sort of killing is justified... Finwitch From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 12 15:08:11 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:08:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141498 Carol: > I agree completely that Snape knew each other very well, and I like > your idea of a poignant last moment on the tower, but I don't think > that Snape's change of expression (to hatred and revulsion) can be > explained without the Legilimency, whatever the images DD sent. If > it were a last goodbye, he surely would not have worn that > expression. If it's a sacrifice, then I think Dumbledore is > telling him that he must play his part because Dumbledore can't do > it alone. (Plus information on legilimency in post #141428) zgrinius: > I find this plausible myself, but clearly many do not. (For > example, I feel both men are sufficiently logical and analytical to > independently reach the same conclusion, that Snape's killing of DD > is the "least evil" under the circumstances, as is being debated in > the "Cold Equations" thread. They might reasonably also know each > other well enough to be *sure* the other is on the same page). On > the other hand, assuming Legilimency is limited to simple images > (no conversation) the mutual understanding that exists between DD > and Snape could help Snape to correctly interpret such a crude > exchange. Jen: Both of you are very convincing on the legilimency angle! And I don't dispute the canon you presented, as zgrinius said, if JKR reveals legilimency between them it wouldn't be cheating. Here's the exact sentence again: "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. 'Severus...please.." Given the construction of the above sentence, I read the revulsion and hatred to be on his face *during* the seconds he gazed at Dumbledore, not that his face changed after gazing at Dumbledore. My thought about legilimency is, what could Dumbledore say Snape wouldn't know? Snape knew his options the moment he surveyed the scene. His expertise in healing dark magic effects told him Dumbledore was suffering from something lethal again, like with the ring, plus he knew the Order was patrolling that night and did so whenever Dumbledore went away (thus why he was in his room). Snape likely knew or guessed Harry went with Dumbledore that night and saw the two brooms. A wandless Dumbledore signaled DD had chosen not to defend himself, plus the DE told Snape Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore. Even though Dumbledore was willing to die if needed that night, I don't believe he asked Snape to do the deed. Instead, the revulsion and hatred were all Snape's at the moment his hand was forced, when the spinner truly met his end. Taking the UV was one thing, but actually facing the result of his actions was another. 'Severus...please...' Dumbledore tried to avoid this moment, prolong it, but there was absolutely nothing he could do once Snape appeared on the tower and the Vow was in play. The orders are over at that point, the general and his lieutenant have faded away to two men. Snape must be the one to act, to make the choice. I do think Dumbledore's words hold meaning for Snape and refer to something between them which they both understand, but as to what.... One last thought on legilimency, another reason this might be difficult for the plot is how it would come back to Harry. It's hard to imagine Snape telling Harry "then he used legilimency to tell me what I should do in that moment" or something similar. Valky: > Besides, I think it's given that Dumbledore didn't mistakenly walk > into the trap but knowingly and preparedly, by his saying to > Draco "Yes, and No." Jen: Yes! Good thought there. One cryptic comment solved :). Valky: > He also says that he has known Draco was trying to kill him all > year, but he didn't approach Draco for he knew it would be instant > death for Draco and his family, and further he tells Harry > straight to the point, that *all* of this, Draco's mission, Snapes > UV, it's all *unimportant* on the scale of things. He's dealt with > it. Jen: Dumbledore stated he could freely talk to Draco finally, without fear of Voldemort using legilimency against him. Why are they free now? My guess is because Dumbledore knew his own death would make legilimency against Draco unnecessary (and by the point he gave up his wand he knows his death that night is inevitable). Valky: > I really love how Jen writes that destiny had brought Snape and > Harry to the Tower that night although Dumbledore may not have > willed it so. I do like the thought that JKR brought this such > element into the story on the tower. Jen: After I wrote that, I realized JKR is the god-like hand of fate in that one-lol! Alla: > It would have been SO much easier to die if he stayed in > Hogsmeade, IMO, NO? Especially if you are arguing that DD did not > want either Snape or Harry to be there. > Just send Harry away, especially since DD specifically made Harry > promise to leave him if he says so, and Dumbledore can die in > peace. Why go to Tower in the first place, if Dumbledore is > planning to sacrifice himself? Jen: Everything meaningful for Dumbledore is at Hogwarts and he knows the DE's came for him. If the DE's were unable to find Dumbledore, and the Order couldn't hold them off, there's no telling what kind of destruction might take place. (Also, Rosmerta under the Imperius might tip Draco off with the coins). To clarify my point about the tower, I believe Dumbledore was willing to die when he went to the tower, and expected it would be difficult to defend himself alone against a group of DE's in his weakned state. Maybe he wasn't acting as a sacrificial lamb so much as trying to divert Draco and the DE's to him & safeguard Harry (and Hogwarts) by sending him away. But the odds were against Dumbledore surviving an attack alone, and we know it wouldn't worry or scare him to die if it came to that. Sending Harry to bring Snape back to the tower served the dual purpose of safeguarding Harry and proving his trust that Severus would do the right thing in forcing the DE's to leave Hogwarts and not touch Harry once DD was dead. Jen, thanking everyone for their kind words :). From rh64643 at appstate.edu Wed Oct 12 17:24:56 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:24:56 -0000 Subject: Wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141499 I have a question about wands. We know that Ollivander has either left his store, or been kidnapped by the Deatheaters. (I personally think he may be evil and went to them) We also know that Harry and L.V. cannot do propper battle with their current wands because they wont work properly against each other. What I am confused about is that if Ollivander has made L.V a new wand, will it work as well as the wand that "chose him". I dont see how it would work as well, and I cant see L.V. using a wand that did not suit him properly. I was just wondering if anyone had any ideas about how this might work into the book. Truthbeauty1. From rh64643 at appstate.edu Wed Oct 12 17:05:41 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:05:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141500 Lupinlore wrote: >(Snip) > And herein is where this whole self-sacrifice scenario falls apart. > The idea that Snape and Dumbledore cooked up this possibility in > advance is thoroughly unbelievable. I'm not saying JKR definitely > won't do it, but to do so would be the worst kind of far-fetched > conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo. For one thing it would amount to > Dumbledore asking Snape to tear his own soul, something I don't > think DD as he has been presented to us would ever do (and yes, I > think that using the AK to kill DD would amount to Snape tearing his > own soul even if it was set up in advance with DD's blessing). > (Snip) truthbeauty1: I do not agree that this would be very far fetched. I really believe that Dumbledore is in the process of dying this entire year due to the ring situation. I think that the cave fiasco basically finished him off, and the dark mark above the tower gave D.D a last burst of strength, but I think he knew he was in the final stages of dying. Now IF Snape is a good guy, which I am not sure about, he would more than likely have gone to D.D about the whold U.V, Draco situation. I think that they would have made some kind of plan during that hypothetical conversation. I think that on the tower, D.D was pleading to Snape to protect Harry and Draco. (the two brooms would have given away Harry's presence to Snape I.M.O) The death eaters are going to kill D.D and Draco if Snape doesnt perform the curse, and the U.V will kill Snape. I believe if Snape is good, he would know that DD would never fight for a few more hours of life if it meant one of his students and a very important member of the Order were going to lose their lives because of it. I also think that it would be obvious to Snape that whatever measures he had taken to prolong D.D's life earlier that year, had become obsolete. So no I dont think there was any kind of Psychic communication, but I do beleive that a good Snape would have read the signs correctly and would have seen that this was the only solution. The face Snape makes could be resentment of Harry or even a kind of self hate. But then again, I will never be sure of Snapes intentions until they are spelled out by J.K.R. truthbeauty1 From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Wed Oct 12 15:43:53 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:43:53 -0000 Subject: Hooked nose (was: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141501 Pippin: > There used to be a concern, though I haven't heard much about it lately, > about whether Snape, with his hooked nose, his insistence on the letter > of the law, and his stiff-necked attitude wasn't some kind of Jewish > allegorical reference. If so, that he should be *falsely* supposed to have > killed Dumbledore has more resonance for me, as a Jew, than if it turns > out that he did kill him but might be forgiven. But that's just me. This is the kind of association that makes ESE!Snape profoundly disturbing to me. If Snape, the impopular nerd with oily hair, turns out to be ESE, and the best that Slytherin house has to offer is Slughorn, than the whole Harry Potter series turns out to encourage prejudice, IMO. Unwillingly on the part of JKR, I am sure, but still. The fact that Dumbledore complains about Draco calling Hermione a mudblood does not negate this: it is very easy and common to complain about prejudice and let it creep in through the back door. That is why I *want* Snape to be good, redeemed, DDM, whatever: not so much for the sake of the soul of an immaginary character, rather for the sake of the soul of a real book. Nicolau (who both thinks and hopes that Snape did not kill Dumbledore) From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 17:44:14 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:44:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141502 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Destroying the horcruxes will not bring Harry any nearer to being > able to defeat Voldemort in combat -- he will still be an inferior > duellist, crippled by his inability to close his mind. Okay, this raises a question I've been thinking of, about the ultimate denoument. Can you imagine, Pippin, a scenario in which the final showdown with Harry and Voldemort is *not* going to be any kind of super skillz dueling situation, but something actually different from the 'kill or be killed' scenario? Snape tells Harry to close his mind, but Dumbledore tells us at the end of OotP, in Harry's possession (surely the most personal encounter possible with Voldie), that it's his open heart that saved him, not his closed mind. Given the superpowers of love magic in the Potterverse, does Harry need to learn how to close his mind, to shut himself off--or could our final solution involve the emotions primary over the intellect, opening up to somehow conquer? I surmise that the twisty-turny part of the fandom doesn't much like the idea of JKR elevating emotion above intellectual solutions, but I can see precedents for it. > If JKR made him sound weak merely to make his death more pathetic, > it would be a betrayal, IMO, far more grievous than any treachery > in her books. What kind of betrayal--a thematic one? That depends on what theme is actually going to be pulled out as the correct (by which I mean most supported, the implications which are actually realized) one. After all, JKR has True Edge, if I remember correctly. She wouldn't be above hitting us with some genuine pathos. Your ESE!Lupin theory does that, it just displaces it onto another character. What a nice way to get Sevvykins out of a deep moral quandry. :) -Nora sits inside and ain't going out again today (extra-warm ski socks are Dumbledorean in their magnificence) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 17:57:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:57:18 -0000 Subject: Hooked nose (was: Importance of Audience (was Re: Dumbledore or Snape)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141503 > Pippin: > > There used to be a concern, though I haven't heard much about it lately, > > about whether Snape, with his hooked nose, his insistence on the letter > > of the law, and his stiff-necked attitude wasn't some kind of Jewish > > allegorical reference. If so, that he should be *falsely* supposed > to have > > killed Dumbledore has more resonance for me, as a Jew, than if it turns > > out that he did kill him but might be forgiven. But that's just me. Alla: You know, I know from experience what an ugly thing antisemitism is and even though my experince is far from the worst ones which many jews from former Soviet Union suffered ( no jail time or anything like that - just periodical slurs in everyday life and impossibility to get into college). And I have to tell you, I did not pick this metaphor from Snape at all. "Mudblood" resonates with me quite deeply, Snape's situation ... so not. Maybe because I evaluate all that happens in Snape life as consequences of bad choices Snape made and IMO continues to make, NOT as undeserved prejudice against someone who did not do anything bad, but just different. But of course, those are just my experiences Nicolau: > This is the kind of association that makes ESE!Snape profoundly > disturbing to me. If Snape, the impopular nerd with oily hair, turns > out to be ESE, and the best that Slytherin house has to offer is > Slughorn, than the whole Harry Potter series turns out to encourage > prejudice, IMO. Unwillingly on the part of JKR, I am sure, but still. > The fact that Dumbledore complains about Draco calling Hermione a > mudblood does not negate this: it is very easy and common to complain > about prejudice and let it creep in through the back door. That is why > I *want* Snape to be good, redeemed, DDM, whatever: not so much for > the sake of the soul of an immaginary character, rather for the sake > of the soul of a real book. Alla: I am not sure I agree with this kind of reasoning. I think Sherry Gomes raised a very good point once. The MAIN villain of the book used to be handsome, charming young man on the outside. So, it is not like JKR portrays her villains as ugly, they can come in all shapes and forms, IMO. If we have a handsome villain, why cannot we have the ugly one too, especially if we are not sure whether Snape is ugly too? Vary as I am of "Harry's POV" argument, I am quite willing to assume that his appearance could be a bit better from what Harry describes. ( Not much though :)). I DO want to see a good redemption story and I think that Snape can still be a good candidate for it, even better now, because then he has something real to be redeemed for. Now, I still thought that he may need redemption for his treatment of Harry, but now stakes are raised so much higher. But , say Snape is not going to get redemption story, but instead as Nora theorised "fall from grace" one. I think it could be no less powerful, especially when we still have Peter as possible candidate for redemption. > > Nicolau > (who both thinks and hopes that Snape did not kill Dumbledore) > Alla, for whom the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore is a given, but the reasons may be not. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 12 17:42:56 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:42:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > One last thought on legilimency, another reason this might be > difficult for the plot is how it would come back to Harry. It's hard > to imagine Snape telling Harry "then he used legilimency to tell me > what I should do in that moment" or something similar. > Pippin: Priori incantatem. If Snape's AK didn't kill Dumbledore then there won't be a wand shadow, and Harry will have some questions about that, or at least Hermione will. If on the other hand, it did, but there's some mitigating circumstance, then Dumbledore's wand shadow can explain it. We have canon that you don't need a brother wand to extract the shadows -- the ministry was able to prove that Morfin's wand had killed the Riddles. I don't suppose they bothered asking the Riddle wand shadows if Morfin had really done it. But Tom could have used polyjuice. The legilimency thing can be explicated by having someone else communicate with Harry in the same way Dumbledore could have. And really, if Dumbledore can visualize a book, he can visualize a page. With writing on it. Pippin From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Oct 12 18:00:08 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:00:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141505 Pippin wrote: > > > Destroying the horcruxes will not bring Harry any nearer to being > able to defeat Voldemort in combat -- he will still be an inferior duellist, > crippled by his inability to close his mind. > > His only hope is a secret weapon, and that weapon, IMO, is Severus Snape, > a weapon so secret that Harry himself has no idea what it is, just as he > had no idea that the wands would lock or that Voldemort's attempt to > possess him would fail. > Well, the problem with THAT is that should it play out, the books are not really about Harry at all. They are, instead, about the wonderful plotting and plans of Albus Dumbledore, whose will reaches out even beyond the grave to accomplish the downfall of Voldemort. And to a lesser extent about the brave and resourceful spy, Severus Snape, who sacrifices himself and his mentor to be in position to help an ignorant and ungrateful boy accomplish a destiny for which he is not worthy. Only thirdly would they be the story of a boy whose choices are not really the crux of the plot after all, since they are only the prologue that allows our hero, Severus Snape, to intervene, show his true colors, and save the day. And THAT, I submit, would be a betrayal worse than anything JKR has pulled up to this point. THAT would in effect be saying "AHA, fooled you! You thought this was a story about a boy wizard and his choices, didn't you? Instead it's a story about a thick-headed boy who becomes the perfect unwitting pawn in a subtle and dangerous scheme authored by an elderly genius and his faithful right-hand man!" Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 12 18:23:46 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:23:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > > Given the superpowers of love magic in the Potterverse, does Harry > need to learn how to close his mind, to shut himself off--or could > our final solution involve the emotions primary over the intellect, > opening up to somehow conquer? > > I surmise that the twisty-turny part of the fandom doesn't much like > the idea of JKR elevating emotion above intellectual solutions, but I > can see precedents for it. Pippin: Oh, I'm sure it will be something like that. But Harry still has to survive Voldemort's efforts to kill him, and he's never done that without help of some kind. Pippin (previously) > > If JKR made him sound weak merely to make his death more pathetic, > > it would be a betrayal, IMO, far more grievous than any treachery > > in her books. Nora: > What kind of betrayal--a thematic one? That depends on what theme is > actually going to be pulled out as the correct (by which I mean most > supported, the implications which are actually realized) one. After > all, JKR has True Edge, if I remember correctly. She wouldn't be > above hitting us with some genuine pathos. Your ESE!Lupin theory > does that, it just displaces it onto another character. What a nice > way to get Sevvykins out of a deep moral quandry. :) > Pippin: I think the theme of accepting death straight backed and proud is well established--it would take some pretty intense backtracking to undermine it now. Genuine pathos in Dumbledore, yes, betrayed by someone he trusted, yes indeed, but not that he expected others to confront death and evil bravely but didn't do so himself. JKR's epitome of goodness, a hypocrite? I don't think so! I can't see him pleading with an enemy, only asking one last favor from a friend. But I wasn't referring to anything so lofty. I meant the expectations of the reader who has been presented with a mystery. It is one thing to have Mark Evans or Alice's gum wrappers turn out to be nothing much -- but when a major character sets us a puzzle, I expect it to be solved. JKR went out of her way to establish that several things about Dumbledore's death were unusual, not least that unexplained plea. She constantly refers to hints, red herrings, and that there is something unexpected coming. After all that, I would feel betrayed if there is nothing in Book Seven but Harry conquering Voldemort, Snape dying in a corner, forgiven or otherwise, and nothing further explained. Pippin From lealess at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 19:00:29 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:00:29 -0000 Subject: Who Ya Gonna Call? In-Reply-To: <003801c5ce6c$be6950d0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > So, who can they > turn to for help? > > lealess > > > > Sherry: > > how about Bill Weasley? There's got to be some reason he's a curse > breaker. i expect his job will come into the situation eventually. > i can't really see Harry turning to Snape. > > Sherry > This is true, but can they ask Bill Weasley to undertake curse breaking without telling him about the horcruxes? Dumbledore told Harry to tell nobody but Ron and Hermione about them, didn't he? I think Snape already knows or has guessed about horcruxes, and he can create counteractive potions or spells to curses already encountered, which Bill may be unable to do. There are many skills Harry does not have, love or luck potion notwithstanding, and Hermione and Ron do not have sufficient experience to break the kinds of Dark curses placed on the locket, at least. If they encounter another potion, the HPB potions book might be useful, but in the time it takes to find a remedy, it could already be too late. (On the other hand, if someone hands them a horcrux, like the diary, they might not have to ask for help.) I cannot see Harry voluntarily turning to Snape for help, yet he did have the HBP's advice about bezoars when Ron was poisoned. In a matter of life or death, I don't know what Harry would do. His hatred of Snape is incredibly intense, but I assume he will have to get over this for the story's sake. Hermione might be the one to somehow ask Snape for help. Her prejudice is not so blinding, and Snape's pride might not be so implacable with her as it is with Harry, especially if she knows about his family. By the way, I was reading about zombies on Wikipedia, and they mentioned a famous victim, Felicia Felix-Mentor, written about by Zora Neale Hurston. Interesting in an off-hand way. lealess From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 19:01:13 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:01:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141508 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > I can't see him pleading with an enemy, only asking one last favor > from a friend. I take it that also excludes asking someone he thought was a friend and invested a great deal of exclusive trust in not to take actions harmful to this friend himself. There's the BANG and the pathos. I think we'll have to wait and see on this one, of course. > JKR went out of her way to establish that several things about > Dumbledore's death were unusual, not least that unexplained plea. She > constantly refers to hints, red herrings, and that there is something > unexpected coming. After all that, I would feel betrayed if there is > nothing in Book Seven but Harry conquering Voldemort, Snape dying in > a corner, forgiven or otherwise, and nothing further explained. The problem here is that JKR's idea of what things are unusual and thus marked and the fandom's ideas are radically divergent, the latter being several times the order of the former. There's also the question of whether everything we perceive as irregular is meaningfully so. We can find potential meaning in everything, but the class of implications that are realized is really quite small. For instance, everything supposedly so very, very strange about the Shrieking Shack scene in PoA: one has to keep open the possibility that we're going to get some 'explanations' for that in the last book, but it also has to be very open that we are *not*, which then invalidates (as arguing about canon itself) the wackier extrapolations of strangeness, because there's no consequence/realization. In fact, I think the whole "JKR is super-twisty" line of argument, which is practically fandom gospel, is probably overrated. We haven't had anything Scabbers-class BANG-y in wot, three books or so--but PoA continually gets pulled up as the model to follow, rather than the exceptionally fine (but exceptional) twist of plotting. I expect some things to be resolved and explained, but I suspect I expect more of it to stand as 'dude, just the way that things happen, you know', than you do, my dear Pippin. That said, consequently my rate of wildly off guesses is much lower. :) -Nora still sits in and watches the rain (and her leaking window) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 18:54:00 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051012185400.2947.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141509 truthbeauty1 wrote: "I have a question about wands. We know that Ollivander has either left his store, or been kidnapped by the Death-eaters. (I personally think he may be evil and went to them) We also know that Harry and L.V. cannot do proper battle with their current wands because they won't work properly against each other. What I am confused about is that if Ollivander has made L.V a new wand, will it work as well as the wand that "chose him". I don't see how it would work as well, and I can't see L.V. using a wand that did not suit him properly. I was just wondering if anyone had any ideas about how this might work into the book." CH3ed replies: Yep, that is a curiosity. :) I think Ollivander might have entered DD's 'witness protection program' that DD offered Draco. DD knew when Harry told him of the priori incantatem effect when Harry fought LV in the graveyard. DD must have suspected that LV realized then that his wand and Harry's shared core (or were connected in some way), so LV might try to abduct Ollivander. I'd like to think DD persuaded OVD to go into hiding first. His wand shop showed no sign of struggle, so I doubt that the DEs took him (like they probably did Florean Fortescue). I'm not very imaginative, so I don't know how that will resolve in Book VII. OVD told Harry in PS/SS that you don't achieve as good a result when you use others' wand. I think both LV and Harry would still be using their own brother wands to the end.That seems to be their destiny (but I'm just speculating, of course).. but as far as we know one would have to have been disarmed (or dis-wanded?) or unable to draw his wand and say a curse at the same time that he is cursed, for one to successfully kill the other. Otherwise the scene in the graveyard would be repeated, and not just one bead of light but many beads will be forced by one into the others wand and instead of the affected wand just vomiting out its past deeds it would just be destroyed altogether? CH3ed From ibchawz at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 19:22:30 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:22:30 -0000 Subject: What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141510 > Alla wrote: > > Sorry for being unclear. I meant getting the Horcrux from the > cave,which DD and Harry managed together, I guess, but still DD was > in charge. > ibchawz responds: This still leaves Harry with 1 Horcrux found/destroyed (diary) and Dumbledore with 1 Horcrux found/destroyed (ring). The locket from the cave proved to be a fake. Or are you saying that you think it is a real horcrux? With the RAB note inside the locket, it would appear that the real horcrux that it replaced is still at large. Or is it? I have read a theory (I don't recall if it was on this list or elsewhere) that the locket in the cave is actually a real horcrux and the RAB note was just part of LV's protection of the horcrux. This would be a clever protection. After going through the all the magical protections in the cave, the person retrieving the horcrux would think that they had a fake due to the note. With this scenario, the RAB could stand for "Really Any Body". If this were the case, 3 horcruxes would be accounted for. Harry would only have 3 more to find in book 7. With 1 less horcrux to find, more of the story could be spent on resolving open issues. I'm not saying that I buy into this theory. I'm simply restating what I have read. ibchawz From h2so3f at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 19:32:05 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rediscovering clues from ealier books WAS: Re: Dumbledore's pleading/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051012193206.33722.qmail@web34911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141511 Nora wrote: "The problem here is that JKR's idea of what things are unusual and thus marked and the fandom's ideas are radically divergent," and "I expect some things to be resolved and explained, but I suspect I expect more of it to stand as 'dude, just the way that things happen," CH3ed replies: I agree! I think we over-analyze some themes too much (but then what else to do since we'll probably have to wait another 2 years or more for the final book to come out :( ). I just love it when I go back and re-read the books and find the clues JKR had so stealthily placed in sometimes books in advanced (like the 'hand of glory' at that shop on knock-turn Alley...and on the same page Lucius Malfoy was selling 'poisons' (which he thought would implicate him if Arthur Weasley finds them at the Malfoy's, both of which turned up 4 books later in HBP). There are so much material in the HP series, and it is marvelously amazing to me how she uses most of it. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 19:49:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:49:44 -0000 Subject: It wasn't Slughorn In-Reply-To: <700201d40510112336q487bb20bhfe9421b463a623b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > Or so I think. > . > Slughorn said of Sirius that he had hoped to have him in his House > because he wanted the set of Blacks. By guess is that Regulus was > quite accomplished for Slughorn to want Sirius. Maybe Regulus was > quite good at potions. It would make a good tie to the Locket. > Regulus made the potion for Voldie. He probably knew the antidote > which would make it easy for him to steal the Locket. > . > Or I could be wrong... > . > Kemper bboyminn: As always, I'm jumping off on a side note. Slughorn chose his 'Sluggies' for their social prominance more than the scholatic ability. I think his criteria has more to do with power and influence. Of course, when he is appling it to students, he has to take part of it from the student's family history, and the rest is a projection of the likelihood of that student obtaining a postion of power and influence in the future. When he finds these students with 'power and influence' potential, he helps them get just that, and in turn, they are very greatful, and more importantly, very considerate of Slughorn. So Slughorn has power and influence by extension. So, the fact that Slughorn desired association with both Sirus and Regulus is no indication of their potions ability. Of course, that doesn't deny or denounce the possibility that Regulus was indeed very good at potions. However, I suspect he was able to get to the Locket Horcrux because he gained inside information about how to get it. It's possible the Voldemort. like all good 'programmers'. left himself a 'backdoor', some shortcut means of getting in and out, that only he would know. In any event, I'm still betting that Regulus (assuming it was him) had inside information that allowed him to either get past or by-pass the protective enchantments, and that's how he got the locket and escaped with his life (sadly, only to lose it later). On the Horcruxes in general, the whole process of tracking them down seems too complex and time consuming using normal methods. Somehow there has to be a shortcut, either the Horcruxes don't have the significants that we currently believe, or Snape will find out how to destroy them and help Harry do so, or Voldemort will get paranoid and move the Horcruxes all to one location and that will simplify Harry hunt. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 19:16:02 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:16:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141513 > Jen: > One last thought on legilimency, another reason this might be > difficult for the plot is how it would come back to Harry. It's hard > to imagine Snape telling Harry "then he used legilimency to tell me > what I should do in that moment" or something similar. zgirnius: Gosh, this got long...I enjoy speculating about Book 7, I guess... I entirely agree it is awkward as you have written it. I can't see Harry and Snape sitting down to a conversation in which SNape explains step by step about the Legilimency. Part of this is my own bias. Regardless of the extebnt to which Dumblediore agreed to his own killing and communicated his desires to Snape, I don't get the impression that Snape feels right about what he has done. So I'm not imagining scenarios in which Snape justifies his actions to Harry. But I am convinced (If JKR wants to go there, again) that the Legilimancy explanation can be presented to the readers in Book 7. Then again, it may not need to be...see thought 4 below. My first thought is, where are Snape and Draco now? If Snape has a plan for hiding Draco I could see a non-Harry POV chapter a la Spinner's End. Snape might explain something like this to Draco, if there were no chance Draco would meet V again. Not justifying his own actions to Draco, but rather making sure Draco understands the enormity of DD's sacrifice for him. An assertion along the lines of 'Dumbledore was willing to die to get *you* off the tower alive and not a murderer. I read it in his mind, at the end.' This way we the readers would know what happened, anyway. My second thought, Snape does something very risky to help Harry in some way at some point. As Snape lies dying on the ground, Harry demands to know "Why, Snape, why? You killed Dumbledore!" "The potion from the cave had weakened him, Potter. He chose death to protect you, just as Lily..." (Snape dies). Hermione is there to explain what this all means for Harry (and those of us who have not caught all the implications). "Snape must have used Legilimency on Dumbledore! How else could he know about the Cave? Dumbledore *chose* to die! Oh, Harry..." (bursts into tears. Ron puts arm around her shoulders.) My third thought, do portraits remember the events of their own lives? That would be very simple...and probably best left to a "wrapping-up" chapter towards the end of Book 7. My fourth thought, well, see thought 2. I expect that Snape is a goner. A particularly EEEVIIILLL thing for JKR to do to us would be to give us Redeemed!Snape in Book 7, who is conveniently dead so noone can ask him any more questions. Then we (the fans) could spend eternity debating what Snape really was. Was he DDM!Snape? OFH!Snape, who saw the error of his ways at last? Conflicted!Snape, who maybe intended to serve the Good, but due to his damaged psyche occasionally failed to live up to this commitment? (With the follow up question-was the tower scene an example of a failure, or a success?) ESE!Snape, who made one big mistake? (This one would require the "redemptive act" to retain some ambiguity...I believe JKR could pull this off. After all, she managed to make the "murder" of DD ambiguous in the eyes of many, as evidenced by this discussion). Although I would find this very frustrating, I actually see this as perhaps the best way, in some sense, to treat Snape in Book 7. He's been such a wonderfully ambiguous figure all along-and this way would remain so forever. In this case of course we would not *know* legilimency was used. But it would be one argument DDM!Snape theorists could present in defense of their theory. My fifth thought, well, Jen, this one was *your* idea. *Voldemort* figures it out. Harry (and thus the readers) could learn of this in the usual way (the "connection"). V is a skilled Legilimens, after all. How long can Snape stay ahead of him, especially if he is now a regular at Voldie HQ? And especially if, for him, the killing of Dumbledore was an emotionally shattering event? (Occlumency relies on being able to hide the emotions that contradict the lie...) This would also be a way to have a Redeemed!Snape work with the Slytherin/Gryffindor dichotomy. (If the Sorting Hat never makes a mistake, how could Redeemed!Snape *not* be a Gryffindor? Why, if his final act of defiance against Voldemort occurred when his back was against the wall anyway! Think RAB=Regulus Black, as another potential example.) From Sherry at PebTech.net Wed Oct 12 21:05:23 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:05:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Hogwarts Priorities (Was Re: Dumbledore's pleading) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141514 So many people have had so many fascinating things to say about this subject, but this post touched on something that had occurred to me: > > Alla: > > It would have been SO much easier to die if he stayed in > > Hogsmeade, IMO, NO?....Why go to Tower in the first place, if Dumbledore is > > planning to sacrifice himself? > > Jen: Everything meaningful for Dumbledore is at Hogwarts and he > knows the DE's came for him. If the DE's were unable to find > Dumbledore, and the Order couldn't hold them off, there's no telling > what kind of destruction might take place. (Also, Rosmerta under the > Imperius might tip Draco off with the coins). Amontillada: What kind of descruction, *and* what kind of harm to the students at Hogwarts? Dumbledore's vocation was teaching and guiding young people. He and Harry didn't know precisely what was going on at Hogwarts, but some kind of battle between the supporters and opponents of LV was obvkously taking place. Dumbledore's instincts demanded that he try any way he could to protect the students. Jen: > To clarify my point about the tower, I believe Dumbledore was > willing to die when he went to the tower, and expected it would be > difficult to defend himself alone against a group of DE's in his > weakned state. Maybe he wasn't acting as a sacrificial lamb so much > as trying to divert Draco and the DE's to him & safeguard Harry (and > Hogwarts) by sending him away. But the odds were against Dumbledore > surviving an attack alone, and we know it wouldn't worry or scare > him to die if it came to that. Amontillada: This makes perfect sense to me. As we've read since PS/SS, Dumbledore is more able to face death than are most people (especially LV, but I digress...) Since the return of LV, he has been at the center of the battle for the WW. From everything we know of Dumbledore, he *must* have thought about the possibility that he might die in the struggle. This suggests another possible meaning of his final words to Snape. Maybe he was trying to say "Severus...please protect the students." This can be interpreted in different ways, because it would put the emphasis not on Dumbledore's desire to live/die, *or* on his vision of Snape, but on his first priority being the students. He was, in the end, unselfish, thinking not of himself but of the young wizards and witches. Amontillada From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 12 17:39:27 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:39:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore or Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141515 Max said: > The Dumbledore I know, love and respect would *gladly* give his life > to protect the lives of others unlikelyauthor (unlikely2): JKR on being asked if she was a Christian replied to the effect that after book 7 no-one would be in any doubt. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that the good shepherd lays down his life for his flock. It is perhaps fortunate for Dumbledore that the life to be sacrificed is his own. This is far less terrible that the situation, for example of the submarine commander who must order watertight doors shut trapping crew members in order to give the rest a chance, or the officer who orders shelling knowing that his own men are still out there or the naval officer ordering the dropping of depth charges to destroy a submarine with survivors from a torpedo attack still in the water. This is not a good way to die. I suggest that what Dumbledore wants most is to protect his students. By whatever means Snape and Dumbledore have arrived at the tower, the only way for Snape to get the Death Eaters, and most particularly Greyback, out of the school is by killing Dumbledore. There is a war on. Both Snape and Dumbledore know that and Snape would know what he has to do even without legilimancy (although legilimency might confirm Dumbledore's decision). Could I also mention Ericcopens post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141487 "My own take on Dumbledore's death(?) up on the tower is that if I were cornered by Death Eaters, a nice, quick, painless-so-far-as-we-know Avada Kedavra would be much more to my taste as a way to shuffle off this mortal coil and join the Eavenly Choir Invisibule than being dragged off alive to play "Twenty Questions" with Lord Voldemort, with Bellatrix Lestrange encouraging my participation with her favorite Unforgivable Curse." Unlikely2: I believe that Snape has taken the least worst decision and he doesn't like it. unlikely2 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 21:15:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:15:03 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141516 > >>Pippin: > > > > I can't see him pleading with an enemy, only asking one last > > favor from a friend. > >>Nora: > I take it that also excludes asking someone he thought was a > friend and invested a great deal of exclusive trust in not to take > actions harmful to this friend himself. There's the BANG and the > pathos. I think we'll have to wait and see on this one, of course. Betsy Hp: What excludes the betrayer!Snape for me is Dumbledore's peaceful look after he dies. If Dumbledore was truly shocked and dismayed by an ESE!Snape, so shocked he actually pleaded with Snape to change his mind (and pleading does strike me as very unlike Dumbledore in general), wouldn't he have died with a look of deep sadness on his face? > >>Pippin: > > JKR went out of her way to establish that several things about > > Dumbledore's death were unusual, not least that unexplained > > plea. > > > >>Nora: > The problem here is that JKR's idea of what things are unusual and > thus marked and the fandom's ideas are radically divergent, the > latter being several times the order of the former. There's also > the question of whether everything we perceive as irregular is > meaningfully so. > Betsy Hp: That's certainly true! But the questions surrounding Dumbledore's death don't all strike me as nit-picky. The man *did* plead, after all. Snape *did* have an expression on his face (revulsion and hatred) that mirrored Harry's feelings in the cave. And Harry *does* think he knows everything at what is arguably the mid-point of the story. All of those things strike me as large enough signs to suggest a possible twist in the tale. After all, such signs have been used by JKR in the past. > >>Nora: > In fact, I think the whole "JKR is super-twisty" line of argument, > which is practically fandom gospel, is probably overrated. We > haven't had anything Scabbers-class BANG-y in wot, three books or > so--but PoA continually gets pulled up as the model to follow, > rather than the exceptionally fine (but exceptional) twist of > plotting. > Betsy Hp: Haven't we? I'd say the Fake!Moody reveal in GoF was awfully BANG- y. Especially for young Harry. And the kidnapping-that-wasn't in OotP, while not as BANG-y for the readership I think, certainly threw Harry for a loop. I do agree that fandom does tend to find more twists than are actually there. (Caused, I'm sure, by the wait between books.) But that doesn't mean that there are no twists at all. JKR's handling of the Slytherins in HBP strongly suggests, IMO, that the most straight forward reading is not necessarily the correct one. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 21:25:57 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:25:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading - Forgive and Forget, or Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141517 > Valky: > So we go, that if Severus Snape did not cast a full > intensive killing curse but instead something that blasted DD > over/through the ramparts, then Why? > > One thing is for sure, if he did it intentionally then he is *not* a > killer. It comes down to Dumbledore's choice the moment he is in the > air. Fawes did not catch him, so Dumbledore's choice is clear and > Snape is vindicated of his responsibility therewith. > > Now I ask those clever listees who have whiled away much effort to > reconstruct the Tower scene from the angles of triage, cold equations > and choices of lesser evil, to consider - > > The same scene, the same danger, the same sacrifice. And > Snape/Dumbledore choose not for Snape to deliver a lethal blow, but to > send Dumbledore over the edge of the tower where he *dies secretly and > unseen*, his body comes to rest far from the reach of the vileness it > was once surrounded by. What are they doing? zgirnius: Well, having DD's body fall off of the Tower removes any incentive for the DEs to stick around. (Gross, but what if Fenrir is a trifle peckish? What if Voldemort would like a trophy?) This is important not only because it is not something any of us want to see happening to DD's body, but also to protect Harry. Since the DEs leave immediately, they are gone once Harry realizes he is free of DD's spell. Snape either casts the AK and follows up with a nonverval spell that moves the body, or fakes the AK using some nonverbal spell/spells. It could also be, as you suggest, that Snape *intended* Dumbledore to just fall off the tower, assuming Fawkes could somehow help him save himself, as you suggest. I find this a bit of a stretch since DD is without his wand-but I suppose Fawkes could fetch DD's wand to him, then DD could lower himself more slowly (as we saw him do to a falling Harry in a Quidditch match in the past). But this could also be unintended. It's true the flying up bit seems totally wrong based on what we've seen. But we've never seen Snape cast the AK before. Maybe his is just peculiarly powerful in terms of physical side-effects. We've never seen a *failed* AK either. Missed, yes. I mean here 'failed' in the same sense that Harry failed to Crucio Bella in the MOM scene in OotP. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 21:54:21 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:54:21 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141518 > >>Siriusly Snapey Susan > > > > Anyway, what intrigued me was the resounding support for > > Slughorn as a pretty decent chap -- perhaps even the "good > > Slytherin" so many have longed to meet. I sat in the session, > > looking around at all those who felt this way, feeling vaguely > > uncomfortable with the conclusion but unable to articulate quite > > why, beyond a notion that his level of self-interest was awfully > > high. > >>Magpie: > I have to say that I think sometimes fandom, possibly in its > desire to see that "Good Slytherin" makes Slughorn into a much > better man than he is. Or maybe not. But to me, while Slughorn > isn't a villain, what he stands for is something very real and not > particularly in keeping with some of the other ideas of the book. > Betsy Hp: I've been a proponent of "Slytherin does not equal evil" for quite a while. So I was thrilled that Slughorn was introduced. At the same time, I do agree with both of you that Slughorn is not a perfect man. By a long shot. He certainly places far too much weight on blood, and he does encourage exclusivity. And he is weak, as is shown in his reluctance to share the Horcrux memory. BUT, Slughorn does not support Voldemort. And Harry realizes this. This is huge, IMO. Because, until HBP, Harry seemed quite sure (and by extension many readers seemed to think) that Slytherin house was the first stop to becoming a Death Eater. The fact that Harry was able to recognize Slughorn's weaknesses (and I think Harry *does* realize that he's benefitting from his fame and possible his mother) but still not classify him as evil is the first step in Harry realizing the worth in Slytherin. For this reason, I doubt Slughorn will be shown to have even *more* weaknesses. In other words, I doubt he had anything to do with the potion in the cave (unless as another example of saying more than he aught to an attractive young man). What I'm hoping for is that rather than a single "good Slytherin" we'll finally see the good *in* Slytherin, and Hogwarts will be healed of the rift made by the founders. (As you spoke of in much more depth, Magpie, here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141348 ) Betsy Hp From carodave92 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 22:20:07 2005 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:20:07 -0000 Subject: It wasn't Slughorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141519 Kemper wrote: > > Slughorn said of Sirius that he had hoped to have him in his House > > because he wanted the set of Blacks. By guess is that Regulus was > > quite accomplished for Slughorn to want Sirius. Maybe Regulus was > > quite good at potions. It would make a good tie to the Locket. > > Regulus made the potion for Voldie. > bboyminn wrote: > > Slughorn chose his 'Sluggies' for their social prominance more than > the scholatic ability. I think his criteria has more to do with power > and influence. Of course, when he is appling it to students, he has to > take part of it from the student's family history, and the rest is a > projection of the likelihood of that student obtaining a postion of > power and influence in the future. When he finds these students with > 'power and influence' potential, he helps them get just that, and in > turn, they are very greatful, and more importantly, very considerate > of Slughorn. Carodave: Actually, Slughorn went for a combination of connections / family and talent. For example, he invited Hermione (of no wizard family) to join the club based on her exemplary grades, and he invited Ginny (but not the rest of the Weasley's) based on a good hex he saw her use. He repeatedly ignores Ron to the point of rudeness, making no effort whatsoever to recruit him simply to have a 'pair' of Weasleys. I think there must have been some talent-based reason that he wanted Sirius as well as Regulus in his club. I really like the idea that Regulus was very talented...after all, Sirius was a powerful wizard and that sort of thing might run in families. And Sirius never said that Regulus was weak, just stupid for joining DEs... Carodave From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 12 22:36:59 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:36:59 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141520 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Haven't we? I'd say the Fake!Moody reveal in GoF was awfully BANG- > y. Especially for young Harry. And the kidnapping-that-wasn't in > OotP, while not as BANG-y for the readership I think, certainly > threw Harry for a loop. No. Scabbers is the one genuinely grand case of the twist which surpasses the boundaries of a single volume (excepting the continually open question of Snape, which has been left open enough and deliberately so that I don't really count any resolution as a 'twist', more as simply finding out the background). But there are lots of dead or unproven/able theories (soon to be riding the SCOW) which rely upon this kind of grand twist. Books 1-4 had the general resolution of a twist at the end of them, but the twist was generally introduced and worked out within a single book; when it depended upon prior information as well, the instigation of the twist was generally within the scope of the book. My memory tells me that most readers found the end of OotP to be decidedly lacking on the Twist Revelation Scale, and book six has a disputed revelation, at best. Theories are fun for the sake of theories, but that's not what I'm dealing with at all here. I'm on the canonical possibility and prediction track, and that's where I think people are convincing themselves it's going to be much more complicated than it really is. I can imagine something legitimately considered twisty for Snape's end, but I can also imagine something more direct. I'm calling the biggest twist to come with however Harry ultimately disposes of Voldemort, because I don't think it's predictable at the moment--while I think at least one of us, or a few in tandem, have Snape pegged correctly...if only we knew who. > I do agree that fandom does tend to find more twists than are > actually there. (Caused, I'm sure, by the wait between books.) But > that doesn't mean that there are no twists at all. JKR's handling > of the Slytherins in HBP strongly suggests, IMO, that the most > straight forward reading is not necessarily the correct one. Not evil, but still venal and generally unpleasant? That's the reading I get, at my more generous, post-HBP. -Nora hits the magic number, and retires back into her desert island cave From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 00:28:45 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:28:45 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141521 Goddlefrood (I almost typed Glorfindel!) wrote: > > My first article will put forth my view that the Big Blond Death > Eater (BBDE)is none other than Ludovic Bagman with supporting > material. > > The relevant known facts first: - > > (i) Bagman was accused of being a Death Eater and it is clear he > was one. > Carol responds: Are you sure about this? In GoF he's placed on trial for passing information to the Death Eater Rookwood, (GoF Am. ed. 592). He's charged with activities relating to the DEs but is not charged with being a DE himself. He gets off the charge by claiming that he didn't know that his father's old pal Rookwood was a Death Eater. Admittedly, the Wizengamot is prejudiced in his favor because he's a Quidditch star with a charming boyish air conspicuously lacking in Karkaroff, who would be unable to escape the charges against him by claiming that he's been "a bit of an idiot," but it's possible that they reached the right verdict for the wrong reasons. The chains on his chair rattle ominously but don't bind him as they bind Karkaroff and the four DEs who are found guilty of torturing the Longbottoms. If the chair magically knows who is guilty and who isn't (it doesn't bind Harry during *his* trial in OoP), then he's telling the truth: he didn't deliberately pass information to a Death Eater. (I'd be interested in seeing evidence that the Wizengamot was wrong, other than Winky's claim that he's a "bad man" because her master, Mr. Crouch, says so. Crouch clearly thinks he's guilty of associating with Death Eaters, but he's overruled by those who think differently.) > (ii) He played Beater for Wimbourne Wasps and England. Carol: True, but Viktor Krum is the Seeker for Bulgaria and no one is accusing *him* of being a Death Eater. I'm not sure how that relates to his being a Death Eater, but it certainly explains the predisposition in his favor at the trial. > (ii) He disappeared after the third task in Goblet of Fire and has > not been seen again. Carol: Yes, but the reasons you cite as suspicious could in fact be the real reasons. From the standpoint of GoF as a detective novel (who put Harry's name in the cup?), Bagman is one of the suspects who are conveniently gathered for us in "The Four Champions": Bagman, Crouch Sr., Karkaroff, Madame Maxime, Snape, Fake!Moody, and Dumbledore (accused by Karkaroff). At one point or another, most if not all of these people behave suspiciously, but their behavior is later explained (the debt to the goblins, in Bagman's case) and the finger of guilt is placed on Crouch!Moody (who BTW gives the details of the kidnap plot under Veritaserum and does not mention Ludo Bagman). Goddlefrood: > Bagman is put across as unconcerend about Bertha's disappearance, > however in light of this article I contend that Bagman knew all > about the plot to kidnap and kill Harry throughout the fourth book > and the references to his problems with the Goblins, while > undoubtedly genuine, are misdirection on Ms. Rowling's part to cast > suspicion away from Bagman. Carol: Or his lack of concern about Bertha is a red herring to make us suspect his involvement in her disappearance, which in turn is connected to the kidnap plot. Goddlefrood: > The first descriptive material that is to hand regarding Bagman > comes in Chapter 7 (Bagman and Crouch). > > "He had the look of a powerfully built man gone to seed His nose was squashed (probably broken by a stray bludger, Harry thought), but [h]is round blue eyes, short blond hair and rosy complexion made him look like a very overgrown schoolboy." > > This bears some close inspection in light of the description of the > BBDE in Half-Blood Prince. Bagman is powerfully built and he has > blond hair. QED? Carol: Sorry. No QED. There are undoubtedly a great many powerfully built blond men in England, some of whom could well be members of this list. We're certainly not told that the big blond Death Eater has a broken nose, round blue eyes, and a rosy complexion. And it's unlikely that Harry would fail to recognize Bagman's face and voice after such frequent contact with him, not to mention that his voice was broadcast magically throughout the stadium at the QWC and all three TWT events. It would be extraordinary, IMO, if Harry failed to recognize it. > Godfroodle (Oops! Sorry. Goddlefrood): > In Chapter 10 (The Dark Mark) Bagman is encountered emerging from > the tress close to where the Dark Mark is conjured and again we are > supposed to believe that he is hiding from the Goblins. > > Shortly after this the Dark Mark appears and as we later find out > Barty Crouch Jnr. had conjured it. I contend that Bagman was meeting > Crouch Jnr. either in furthereance of the plot or to have it > explained to him and to warn him off from having Bertha Jorkins > searched for too closely. Carol: Again, this suspicious behavior sets him up as one of the suspects in the kidnap plot but is otherwise explained later in the book, as is Mr. Crouch's bizarre behavior. It's as much a red herring as Karkaroff's DE connections. His attempts to help Harry are also explained by the goblin debt and need have no other cause. Godfroodle: > At this point I state that for those of you who seem doubtful of the > foregoing consider that when the BBDE is come across in Half-Blood > Prince Harry does not see his face at all. He (BBDE) is certainly > not, as The Harry Potter Lexicon speculates, the brutal-faced Death > Eater (who I believe to be Yaxley). Carol: Christine has already convincingly addressed this point so I won't comment. I do agree that the brutal-faced DE is Yaxley (and Amycus and Alecto are the Carrows). Otherwise, why would JKR have Snape give those names in "Spinner's End"? Or the BBDE, as you call him, could be Yaxley. Goddlefrood: > George speculates that Bagman ran because of the Goblins, whereas it > is more plausible that he did not want to miss his master's return. Carol: George has good reason to know why Bagman disappeared. He and Fred have been cheated out of their gold just as the goblins have. If he didn't want to miss his master's return, why wasn't he in the graveyard and why haven't we heard from him since? > Goddlefrood: If he were really either the coward or oathbreaker then > surely he would have been located and killed and his demise > commented upon somewhere in the wizarding world. It never is, which > reinforces me in my belief that Bagman is a loyal Death Eater > through and through. Carol: As it's been pretty clearly established that Karkaroff was the coward and Snape the one Voldemort believed would not return (see "Spinner's End"), this appears to be a straw man argument. (Granted, Snape wasn't killed, but that's because of his talents as an Occlumens and his powers of persuasion.) Just because he isn't one of those two people (neither is Dumbledore or Harry) doesn't make him a Death Eater. There is no indication that Bagman was in the graveyard, and the only evidence that he *might* have been is the Death Eaters that Voldemort passed in silence. And none of the DEs present showed up late and out of breath as Bagman would have had to do if he ran from the Quidditch Field to get his cloak and mask and then ran to Hogsmeade to operate. Otherwise, he'd have had to show up in his Wimbourne Wasp robes. I doubt that Harry would have overlooked his presence if that were the case. > Goddlefrood: > One final piece of fun evidence regarding Bagman as the BBDE is > contained in Quidditch Through the Ages by Kennilworthy Wisp (page > 52, Bloomsbury hardback edition) where the Bludger Backbeat is > described thus: > > "A move by which the Beater strikes the Bludger with a backhanded > club swing, sending it behind him or her rather than in front. > Difficult to bring off with precision but excellent for confusing > opponents." > > This fits in well with the BBDE's actions during the fight at > Hogwarts where he is firing off spells all over the place, and > including I contend behind him so that his aim is not necessarily > perfect. > Carol: Bagman was and probably still is a skillful athlete. The BBDE appears to be clumsy. And movements with a bat aren't really comparable to wand movements. It's really best to be careful where you're aiming that AK. Sheer clumsiness and incompetence are one thing; showy maneuvers like shooting from behind your back are another--inexcusable folly if word ever gets back to Voldemort. (BTW, I think the BBDE is history. LV isn't going to like what happened to Gibbon.) Carol, who does wonder what happened to Bagman and suspects that the goblins are holding him hostage From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Oct 13 00:32:10 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:32:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading - Forgive and Forget, or Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141522 > > Valky: > > So we go, that if Severus Snape did not cast a full > > intensive killing curse but instead something that blasted DD > > over/through the ramparts, then Why? What are they doing? > > zgirnius: > Well, having DD's body fall off of the Tower removes any incentive > for the DEs to stick around. (Gross, but what if Fenrir is a trifle > peckish? What if Voldemort would like a trophy?) Valky: I agree with all of those implications. IMO, a DDM Snape would at least want to prevent a public desecration of Dumbledore's body and I think perhaps Dumbledore would too. There are all kinds of literary implications there too, like your example that if Dumbledore had died on the Tower, it surely will have followed that the DE's would make to have their way with his body and claim a trophy, and I am sure JKR didn't want to do *that* to her epitome of goodness. In terms of plot there's the other implication that Dumbledores body is *laden* with evidence of his secret doings. He has the fake Horcrux in his pocket with a note to the Dark Lord in it, he has a dead/blackened hand which Voldemort might recognise as the effects of his own ring Horcrux curse, not to mention Harry Potter standing behind the door primed to rush out like a madman the instant he is free. That much information is a *gift* to Voldemort, just tie a bow around it and sing 'Happy Evil Overlord Victory' day. zgirnius: > Snape either casts the AK and follows up with a nonverval > spell that moves the body, or fakes the AK using some nonverbal > spell/spells. > > It could also be, as you suggest, that Snape *intended* Dumbledore > to just fall off the tower, assuming Fawkes could somehow help him > save himself, as you suggest. Valky: Well, No, not really. I mean to actually to suggest that Dumbledore alone deliberated and saw the necessity for blasting him off the tower, while Snape would be more like Harry in the cave, justifiably afraid it might kill Dumbledore, getting the sense that Dumbledore has a death wish because he's asking it, starting to know that Dumbledore *will die* if he does, stalling for DD to come up with some alternative, and then... well... just doing it, reluctantly and hating it, but following the order as it was given. IMO, the best clue that Jo could have laid to answer this question is Dumbledores exact time of death. But she knows us and how darn analytical we are, it seems, because she has given *even that* a neat little ambiguity. Harry cannot exactly pinpoint the moment when he was freed from Dumbledores PT jinx and started being frozen in shock instead. All we do know is that his scream never left him, so DD didn't die the instant he was struck by Snapes curse, after that, mystery. zgirnius: > I find this a bit of a stretch since DD is > without his wand-but I suppose Fawkes could fetch DD's wand to him, > then DD could lower himself more slowly (as we saw him do to a > falling Harry in a Quidditch match in the past). Valky: Yeah, that's a stretch, but I really didn't mean to suggest that Snape would think Fawkes will bring DD his wand so he could save himself. Fawkes could catch him, Phoenixes can *carry* huge loads. Essentially, my point about Fawkes is that he probably *would* rush (apparate) from his hiding place to catch the falling DD, the fact that he didn't suggests very strongly that Harry was not the only of Dumbledores trusted and beloved allies who was *ordered* NOT to protect him. > zgirnius: > But this could also be unintended. It's true the flying up bit seems > totally wrong based on what we've seen. But we've never seen Snape > cast the AK before. Maybe his is just peculiarly powerful in terms > of physical side-effects. We've never seen a *failed* AK either. > Missed, yes. I mean here 'failed' in the same sense that Harry > failed to Crucio Bella in the MOM scene in OotP. > Valky: I agree with this, and I am still quite open to the possibility that Snapes AK was real, but failed in some sense to do the job. What I essentially think is evident is that it was not simply a successful Avada Kedavra. Dumbledore flew up, instead of fell down, so he may have been alive as he fell. If it was a real AK that failed (which we I agree we haven't seen so it could still be), Snape's actions are slightly mitigated by his inability to cast the real one, and what appears to be Dumbledore's choice to die thereafter but it still could mean Snape has betrayed DD in some way. But if Snape deliberately didn't cast a killing AK and deliberately blasted Dumbledore off the tower, instead, then it almost automatically follows that he probably isn't a killer, but rather just another of DD's lieutenants following orders, like Harry. And in that case, I am mostly curious about understanding it from Dumbledores perspective. From charybdisxv at gmail.com Wed Oct 12 19:12:27 2005 From: charybdisxv at gmail.com (Charybdis) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:12:27 -0500 Subject: Wizarding nationalities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141523 colebiancardi: > > (who actually thinks Snape might be Italian, as his first name, > > Severus, is very Latin/Roman) Geoff: > I think that there are several names in HP which can be linked to Latin > or Greek roots which I do not think are necessarily indicators of > nationality. In addition to Severus, examples which spring to mind > include Minerva, Albus, Hermione, Dedalus, Draco and Lucius - which is > not meant to be an exhaustive list by any means. Charybdis's response: I believe the many Latin-rooted names in HP have to do with their frequent use of Latin in spellwork, as well as in scientific names and terms in herbology. I think it is quite possible that accomplished wizards must be speakers of at least rudimentary Latin, and the influence of Latin/Greek goes into many facets of their culture, including wizard-folk names. It's also possible that those who are serious about studying magical creatures study mythology a great deal, and so they are also familiar with Greek. In conclusion, I don't think it necessarily means any of them are or are not Italian/Greek/etc. There are a few possible reasons why they have Latin/Greek influenced names. -- Charybdis From agdisney at msn.com Wed Oct 12 23:27:23 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:27:23 -0400 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - WAS Re: Harry IS Snape. References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141524 Amiable Dorsai: > Narcissa brings up the Unbreakable Vow. If [Snape] refuses to take > it, the discussion is over, he will not learn what Draco is up to-- > so, in for a penny, in for a pound--he takes the Vow. Magpie: > But Narcissa is going to *tell* Snape what the plan is until he > *stops* her by saying he already knows. He doesn't need to take a > UV to get Narcissa to talk. I can't see how Snape doesn't know what Draco is planning to do. Being a Legilimens he must be able to *see* what Narcissa wants without her actually saying anything. This way she doesn't do anything wrong where Voldi & Bella are concerned. She doesn't say anything. He knows what he is getting into before agreeing to the UV. He lets Dumbledore know what to expect and gets the DADA job because one way or another he will not be back next year. Disneymom From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 13 01:54:09 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:54:09 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141525 > Pippin: > Destroying the horcruxes will not bring Harry any nearer to being > able to defeat Voldemort in combat -- he will still be an inferior > duellist, crippled by his inability to close his mind. Nora: Okay, this raises a question I've been thinking of, about the ultimate denoument. Can you imagine, Pippin, a scenario in which the final showdown with Harry and Voldemort is *not* going to be any kind of super skillz dueling situation, but something actually different from the 'kill or be killed' scenario? Snape tells Harry to close his mind, but Dumbledore tells us at the end of OotP, in Harry's possession (surely the most personal encounter possible with Voldie), that it's his open heart that saved him, not his closed mind. Given the superpowers of love magic in the Potterverse, does Harry need to learn how to close his mind, to shut himself off--or could our final solution involve the emotions primary over the intellect, opening up to somehow conquer? Julie now: I think Harry does need to learn how to close his mind, or at least to control his emotions to some degree. Twice now Harry's gone half-witted while fighting someone because of his emotions, both times trying to Crucio someone (first Bella, then Snape). Love may be Harry's saving grace, but his inability to control his emotions may also be his downfall--i.e. making decisions based on his strong emotions may save him or doom him. That's not unusual--one's greatest asset are often also one's greatest weakness, depending on how it is used. (Just as Snape's tendency to cold calculation has been both an asset, and his downfall in HBP.) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 02:20:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:20:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? WAS: Re: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141526 > Nora: > Given the superpowers of love magic in the Potterverse, does Harry > need to learn how to close his mind, to shut himself off--or could > our final solution involve the emotions primary over the intellect, > opening up to somehow conquer? > > > > > Julie now: > I think Harry does need to learn how to close his mind, or at least > to control his emotions to some degree. Twice now Harry's gone > half-witted while fighting someone because of his emotions, both > times trying to Crucio someone (first Bella, then Snape). Love may > be Harry's saving grace, but his inability to control his emotions > may also be his downfall--i.e. making decisions based on his strong > emotions may save him or doom him. That's not unusual--one's greatest > asset are often also one's greatest weakness, depending on how > it is used. (Just as Snape's tendency to cold calculation has been > both an asset, and his downfall in HBP.) Alla: I am not sure I agree with you Julie and I think I agree with Nora one hundred percent. At the end of OOP Dumbledore is incredibly clear, IMO. It is you heart that saved you, period. Now, we were speculating non stop who will teach Harry Occlumency in HBP. But nobody was teaching Harry Occlumency, because IMO Dumbledore understood quite well after MOM fiasco that Harry does not need it. As we know, JKR stated that Harry completely gave up Occlumency because he is in some sense damaged, but also too open, too honest about his feelings, about what happened to him. Do you read ANY negative connotation in that quote? Because I did not. Except the fact that Harry had been hurt during his life, I read underlined approval about being honest about his feelings. I absolutely believe that "feelings" are what matters the most in "Potterverse", not cold intellect. I am not saying that JKR advocates that characters she likes should be idiots, of course, BUT Hermione's statement at the end of PS/SS about friendship and bravery mattering more than books ( paraphrase) tells me a lot. Now, could you tell me which character tells Harry that he should shut down his emotions, except Snape of course( and I would not say that he understands Harry well at all. :-))? I think Dumbledore encourages Harry to FEEL to the full degree, personally. As to examples you brought, well, to tell you the truth, I am not sure Harry should even give up those. He used Unforgivables, true, BUT he did it at the moment of extreme grief, after just watching the Loved one die. I think it will NOT be good for Harry to learn how to " NOT grieve". What does Dumbledore say at the end of OOP? "Harry, suffering like this proves you are still a man!This pain is a part of being human..." - OOP, p.824. I think that Harry should NOT give up his negative emotions either, because without them he may be unbalanced in a sense. What I think Harry should learn is how to CHANNEL those negative emotions better, NOT to give up them. I suppose maybe he would learn how to channel them in too different kind of magic, NOT Unforgivables. To sum up - NO, I don't believe that Harry should follow Snape advice at the Tower at all, and this is one of the predictions I feel quite confident to make for book 7. Harry will NOT learn how to close his mind or anything like that. Now, preparing to eat a nice tasty crow. :-) JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 02:47:25 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:47:25 -0000 Subject: Trial of Severus Snape - UV In-Reply-To: <191.498f3ac0.307dd7c6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141527 > Julie wrote: > Still, it's odd to me that Snape stopped Narcissa "at once." As if > he didn't want her to say it out loud. If he didn't know what it was all > about, it seems Bella being furious at her sister--or at him-- would be > a small price to find out what Voldemort is up to. zgirnius: Yes, but if Snape hadn't stepped in it is likely that Bella would have. (By shouting, threatening to tell the Dark Lord all, whetever...) She thinks this is very important, after all. By preempting Bella and stopping Narcissa himself, he ingratiates himself some with Bella. By then claiming he already knows the secret, (after a show of caution Bella ought to appreciate) he then takes away Bella's grounds for interfering further in the conversation. Julie wrote: > After all, if he is making this up, and Bella tells Voldemort that > Snape claimed to know the plan, what is Voldemort going to think > of Snape, lying about how much he knows? It won't do much for > Snape's trustworthiness in Voldemort's eyes. zgirnius: Sure, Snape might have been told. Even if it is a top secret plan, it will be going down at Hogwarts, where Snape is V's "agent in place", so he might be considered to "need to know". I don't think so myself. Peter's presence suggests to me Snape is not especially trusted. And I think Snape's presence at Hogwarts will be less valuable to V if DD dies, so V might not feel a need to warn Snape. Finally (as I argue above) I found all Snape's actions consistent with a bluff. I agree it might look dodgy if Bella told V Snape claimed to know the plan. But then DEs are probably always lying to each other about how important they are, this could be seen as a similar maneuver. Also, as the chapter actually ends, I don't think Bella will be discussing the meeting with V. at all. Her acting as Bonder for that Vow makes her complicit...and the Vow may have convinced her some of Snape's loyalties (her astonishment as he takes the Vow suggests this). > julie wrote: > This makes culpability more difficult to assign, I think. Snape > went in expecting to cement his relationship with Narcissa, via > protection of her son. And Dumbledore was aware of Snape's intent, > perhaps hoping the final result would be bringing the Malfoys over > to the Good side. But it went awry when Narcissa tacked on that > third provision. zgirnius: I would argue that Snape's culpability is equally lessened if his motive in taking the Vow (clauses 1 and 2 especially) was to gain valuable intelligence for the Order. Even if there was no preexisting plan made with Dumbledore. To be effective as a spy among the DEs Snape has got to be able to use some initative. Provision 3, no matter which of us is reading things right, is of course where things get sticky... > Disneymom wrote: > I can't see how Snape doesn't know what Draco is planning to do. > Being a Legilimens he must be able to *see* what Narcissa wants > without her actually saying anything. This way she doesn't do > anything wrong where Voldi & Bella are concerned. She doesn't say > anything. He knows what he is getting into before agreeing to the > UV. He lets Dumbledore know what to expect and gets the DADA > job because one way or another he will not be back next year. zgirnius: I agree that if Narcissa wanted to communicate the plan to Snape via Legilimency, she would have had ample opportunity. (Assuming she is aware he is a Legilimens.) And it would be a clever way to circumvent Bella! However, I think Snape telling her he knows the plan might cause her to not think of this. Now, if she were thinking about the plan at any of the moments we read Snape is gazing into her eyes (even if this was not intentional), then also Snape would have to know. I am sure he was trying Legilimency on Cissy. However, Cissy was in quite the emotional state. It is possible that her "top of mind" thoughts and feelings were all about her fears for Draco and thus not of any use to Snape. But assuming you are right...why would he take the UV? From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 03:09:34 2005 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (Debbie) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 03:09:34 -0000 Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141528 This has probably been discussed before but I've been AFK a *lot* since HBP came out -- Elyse: > I have asked this question before as well. This is precisely my > contention with the whole Killing-tears-the-soul so called "canon". > Slughorn told Riddle that in order to create a horcrux, you have to > murder someone. This was so that you could use the death of another > person to harness your soul piece to the object.Nowhere is it said > that *every* killing rips the soul. What Slughorn says is this: "You must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." [here Riddle asks how you do it] "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion -- " I agree that not every killing tears the soul (take the example given earlier of the hiker accidentally dislodging a rock which kills another hiker below); however, I think this language very strongly implies that every *murder* tears the soul. > And if this was the case, Voldemort would have his soul in any > number of pieces by now. And, yes, this means Voldemort's soul is in very sad shape. Even the fragment he retains must be hanging in shreds after all the murders he has committed (according to Dumbledore, enough to create an army of Inferi -- and I'm sure all of them are acts of evil). He has loads of people. GH itself would not > have happened. Lily and James' deaths had already torn his soul. The > significance of the magical power inherent in the number seven would > be lost. No, even for Voldemort, most murders do not result in the creation of Horcruxes. He has to take the further action of encasing the soul bit. > I also like the point raised about indirect killings ripping the > soul. Does this mean that the bridge that was destroyed by the DE's > at the start of the book killing a lot of Muggles caused their souls > to be broken down into fragments? Did Emmeline Vance and Amelia > Bones contribute to the number of torn soul pieces in the WW? One further thought. We tend to assume that once a soul has been torn, it cannot be mended. Perhaps this is because we are speaking of Voldemort, who has a mile-long list of evil deeds to his name, and no good deeds as far as we know. But I think that torn souls can be repaired. Borrowing for a moment from my old catechism, IIRC in the Catholic tradition, sin separates a human being from God's love, and confession and repentance restores it. Why shouldn't something like this be true in the Potterverse? So in the case of Snape (all things come back to Snape in the end, yes?), I believe this thread was sparked by the assertion that Snape has a ripped soul regardless of whether Dumbledore approved his own killing. I suggest that regardless of whether Snape's act would be regarded as a "supreme act of evil" (to quote Slughorn) that split his soul, there is the possibility of redemption which would mend the split (leaving a scar, to be sure, but still better than an open wound). The difference between Snape and Voldemort is that by creating a Horcrux, Voldemort has separated the soul pieces, precluding the possibility of repair. His soul has been permanently diminished, possibly foreclosing any possibility of redemption. Debbie morbidly fascinated by the metaphysics of soul-splitting From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 03:14:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 03:14:12 -0000 Subject: Percy's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141529 Alla earlier: > Are you saying that it would have happened > > before Persy sent the letter or that it would be interposed in > > Hogwarts? > Ericopen: > I think you mean _intercepted. Alla: Yes, that is what I meant, of course. Sorry about that! Ericopen: > Yes, I would say that the letter could be read as a secret message to > Ron. Basically, between the lines, we find out that Umbridge is > planning changes, and that the Ministry's out to get Harry for daring > to say that HWMNBN is tanned, rested, ready and about to begin his > Second World Tour. Alla: I think I like your example, which I snipped, but I think that Percy's letter is different in a sense that those things that you are saying could be read between the lines, are actully not hidden at all. Percy IS open in saying that Umbridge is planning changes. He is just saying that for more details Ron should read Daily Prophet. " I feel bound to tell you that Dumbledore may not be in charge at Hogwarts much longer and the people who count have a very different - and probably more accurate - view of Potter's behaviour. I hsall say no more, but if you look at Daily Prophet tomorrow you will get a good idea of the way the wind is blowing - and see if you can spot yours truly" - OOP, paperback, p.297. Percy is even MORE clear that Ministry is out to get Harry, IMO. "He got of on mere technicality if you ask me and many of the people I've spoken to remain convinced of his guilt" - eg. If this is a secret message, I read it as a very not secret one, so to speak. :) What is even more important, I am not sure I can see any warnings in Percy's letter, except of course to stay away from Harry, but this one is quite clear to me too and I am not sure if this was a good faith warhing of musguided older brother, or someone who would be ashamed if anyone of his family would continue associate himself with Boy who lived, because it can cast shadow on Percy's career. Alla previously: > > I would not exclude the possibility that Persy in his mind was > > looking out for Ron by telling him to stay away from Harry, but > > well, it does not make him to be any less of the git to me. Ericopen: > He's "no less of a git" for trying to look out for his brother? What > would it take to make you think he's not a git? Alla: Um, sorry again. I think that even if Percy WAS looking out for Ron, insulting the boy whom Ron considers to be another brother of his, is going to hurt Ron very badly and the fact that Percy does not seem to realise that, that is what makes him a git in my eyes. JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 13 03:40:46 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 03:40:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's family In-Reply-To: <103.6bb65931.307de478@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141530 > Julie now: > When it comes to Dumbledore's family, so far we are only aware > of one person who qualifies--Abelforth, Dumbledore's brother. I do > suspect Abelforth will have some part in Book 7. If Dumbledore's > family only consists of Abelforth, however, this seems a very > narrow avenue to explore. What if there are other Dumbledores? > Or other relatives not necessarily named Dumbledore (from > the maternal side of the family)? > My theory is that Eileen Prince is related to the Dumbledores. > Perhaps her mother was a Dumbledore (an aunt, or a cousin). > Her mother married a Prince, then Eileen married a Snape (a > Muggle no less), and eventually came little Severus, cousin > once(twice?)-removed or even great-nephew to Albus and > Abelforth. Jen: I definitely think we'll get more on Snape's background (comments below), but wanted to offer another option for the significance of Dumbledore's family. JKR dismissed the idea Harry is an heir of Gryffindor in the TLC/MN interview, but she didn't close the line of speculation for Dumbledore/Aberforth. The most compelling evidence to me is that James and Lily were protected at Godric's Hollow. Since we know the Potter's weren't heirs, the question of why they stayed there is open again. My guess is Dumbledore wanted to be their Secret Keeper partially because he arranged the hiding place, and knew of the protections already on the house. We have other evidence, most as old as the list itself, that Dumbledore is from the Gryffindor line. Like the griffin-door knocker on the headmaster's office and DD in possession of the sword. I'd even add DD's watch, and the one he possibly gave to the Weasleys to pass on to Ron as a birthday present, as likely-to-be- revealed evidence of the Gryffindor connection. There's plot significance for this idea, too. Reading COS, it ocurred to me Harry will undoubtedly vanquish the last Heir of Slytherin in Book 7. If the last Heirs of Gryffindor die out, what would that mean for the split in the WW started by Godric Gryffindor and Slytherin? If both heirs are gone, will that finally lay rest to the feud and help heal the split between the houses? From the sorting song in OOTP, it sounds like Slytherin leaving the castle, and whittling 'four houses down to three' was the basis for the split. Maybe there's even a curse that Slytherins and Gryffindors especially will always be at war so long as any of the bloodlines survive. Back to Snape now. Julie: > A blood relationship isn't necessary to explain Dumbledore's > actions in regards to Snape, or the strong connection the two > seem to have (especially in HBP), but it does provide an added > dimension to various moments in the books--Dumbledore's concern > for Snape's welfare, Snape coming "back" to the Order (which > implies a previous connection), the ease with which Dumbledore > accepts Snape--warts and all--and that repeatedly drilled in > "complete" trust he has in Snape. Jen: I do think there's some connection between Eileen Prince and Dumbledore's trust of Snape, although probably not blood-related. Eileen went to school with Riddle after all, and was probably in Slytherin since Snape was. But she didn't follow the pure-blood policy of Voldemort and the DE's. Sometimes I wonder if Snape was recruited by the DE's as punishment for Eileen's pure-blood transgression of marrying a Muggle. So that leads to the possibility Snape's defection had to do with some mistreatment (or murder?) of his mom. Julie: > A blood relationship could also explain a few other things, > such as why Eileen Prince (aka Irma Pince) was brought to > Hogwarts (presumably to protect her). Maybe also why > Snape seems jealous at times of Harry's relationship with > Dumbledore. (That's *my* relative, not yours!) Jen: There is a sibling rivalry there, an undercurrent of one at least. My guess is it has more to do with Snape and Harry both being crucially important to Dumbledore's plan, maybe the two *most* important people. And I like the idea of Irma Pince in the witness protection program! Although another possibility was the furry- headed patient on the ward with Lockhart in OOTP, Agnes, whose son was visiting her on Christmas day. Irma Prince is probably more interesting and more JKR's style, though. Julie: > Plus, this could be a reason why Voldemort continues to hold > Snape in such high esteem, even with Snape's slithery ways > and avoidance of doing any dirty work. To have turned a relative > of Dumbledore's to the dark side would be a coup indeed, and > Voldemort just can't give up the idea of that victory! Jen: He does, doesn't he? Hold him in high esteem. It must be his skills, because likely another DE would be AK'd on the spot for not returning to the graveyard. Well, except Voldemort doesn't have too many followers left at that time, maybe he was just willing to take whomever showed an interest. Open recruitment policy. ;) I completely agree we'll get backstory to explain more about the trust issue. There are too many clues given already to Snape's history, plus the very juicy plot holes we're all waiting to see filled--why did he become a DE in the first place and what made him switch sides? I liked Magpie's explanation btw, that Dumbledore considered all Hogwarts students to be on his side until they joined Voldemort's, and that's why he said Snape 'rejoined their side'-- doesn't that just fit Dumbledore?!? Jen From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Oct 13 04:15:33 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:15:33 -0000 Subject: Old threads revived and sewn together. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141531 Remember before HBP, there were listees that predicted there was more than one piece of Voldemort in the WW, and that Snape would end up shooting Dumbledore, that potions would be the big doo dah in book six... etc... Although we are a bit hit and miss around here, the hits are pretty amazing, you gotta admit. I recently trawled the database of recomended posts, and found a couple of threads that I thought should be ressurrected post HBP. Y'know, narrow the chances that after book seven we'll be looking at the FP section and saying to ourselves "Shame we got sidetracked by the latest book, hey?" Ok so here are two of the posts that I found interesting but severely undeveloped: Fools Gold - Jotwo http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121594 Alchemy and the Purple Flames - DianaSiriusfan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116307 Now I couldn't really pinpoint a thread that discusses thoroughly the sequence of under the trapdoor tasks as parrallels to their respective books, but we all know that one don't we? So, I thought, somehow that these three belonged together, and heres how they fit- The first post Fools Gold, speculates that the cut character Pyrites, whom Jo said she was planning to artistically stain with blood on his gloved hands every so often, may have been a predecessor to a known and current character. Jotwo suggested Severus Snape, and here's why I have decided that I agree and would like to pursue it- First, JKR tells that she planned to stain Pyrites' hands with blood. It follows that any character who would be the alter-ego of Pyrites, would be one who is *seen* to have blood on his hands for most of the series. Note that JKR says that she planned to artistically put blood on his white gloves, as in a suggestion that this man has blood on his hands, JKR is not saying that it was planned he'd be sketched in gloating over the dead bodies of the nice characters, blood on his gloves is not specifically saying that Pyrites was going to be shown an obvious killer, it's suggestive imagery and suggestive imagery, let's be frank, is exactly what canon Snape is made of. The second reason is that when telling us about Pyrites, JKR suggests that he was planned to be present at Godrics Hollow. The Fourth Man that JKR remains extremely tight lipped about. Since HBP and the revelation that he was the Hogshead spy, Snapes rank on the fourth man sliding scale has shot through the roof, IMO. Pyrites and Snape seem to have a fair stack in common, that's for sure. So lets assume that Pyrites *was* Snapes predecessor character. And go from there, what can we say about the name Pyrites. Heres what JoTwo said: I am also speculating whether another plot function for Pyrites was performing alchemy for Voldemort. In the very early page of Philosopher's Stone that you can find on the web site Harry, Ron and Hermione are discussing Nicholas Flamel and the Philosopher's Stone. Hermione says she has read about this in a book, Alchemy, Ancient Art and Science by Argo Pyrites. The Argo was the ship of Jason and the Argonauts on their voyage to find the Golden Fleece. Thus the first name is also connected to gold. Whether or not the Pyrites who worked for Voldemort was the same as the author of the book about alchemy, a name that means fool's gold seems the type of punning moniker that JKR would give an alchemist. Especially as the quest to turn base metals into gold is, in reality, fruitless (and even in legend only Flamel achieved it). ------------------------------end quote Now this is where we sew in the second post. The one by Diana Sirius fan - My first thought was that this is the secret that Voldie used so he didn't die in PS but then I realized that it is a spiritual process and it couldn't be. Then I thought it was interesting that at the end of PS, Harry had the stone and he could be 'like the gods' pursuing the gold of the wise (Dumbledore). -------------------------------end quote So, let us now assume that Harry is the Alchemist, pursuing the the Spiritual Gold, and Pyrites is the lesser Alchemist, as JoTwo suggested, pursuing only fools gold. Then, if Snape were Pyrites reincarnated, it would be self evident that the two of Harry and Snape are similar but on divergent paths. Post HBP, there are few of us who are not convinced of this now before I even mention it, right? :D If not here's some staple ingredients: The similarities in their childhood experiences. Both Half-Blood Hermione's comments that Snape sounded like Harry in DADA. Numerous mirror events in HBP of Harry doing what Snape did and vice versa. You get the picture.. Okay so, there we have a fairly firm basis IMO for another corrollary, correct me if I am wrong about that.. and that's where I'd like to bring in one more part of Diana's post and the famous Under the Trapdoor foreshadowing theory. First Diana's post - "The violet flame is a tool of transformation. In alchemy, base metals are transformed into gold and this is symbolic of what the violet flame does. The alchemy of self-transformation. The violet flame has the capacity to bring this transformation by transmuting negative elements within ourselves. It has a unique ability to transform fear into courage, anxiety into peace and hatred into love. -------------------------------end quote Diana compares this violet flame to the flames that Harry walks through at the end of his 6th task under the trapdoor. In that scene Hermione and Harry are standing together but then their paths diverge dramatically. There is only enough potion for Harry to go on, while Hermione, takes a different potion. One that takes her *back* where she helps Ron who is alone and needs help to get back. Now lets add the Under the Trapdoor foreshadowing theory and call this *the end of book six*. It's fairly obvious where I am going with this, right. If DD's death is the flame of Harry's transformation, and Harry goes forward like he did under the trapdoor, then who goes back? We see a character go back in the end of book Six. Snape retreats and he takes with him someone who needs help to get back, Draco. So lets put all the pieces together. Snape/Pyrites, is likened to an Alchemist, but his chances of getting the real stone instead of fools gold aren't that great with a name like that. Harry OTOH is the "chosen one" so he goes ahead alone to stop Voldemort, he walks through the flames of transformation just as he did in book 1. At the very least, IMHO, we have plenty of reason to speculate that book seven will be just like the Man with two faces chapter. And perhaps a little reason to believe it won't be Snape we find helping Voldemort on the other side of the flames. ;D Valky From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 05:52:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 05:52:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? WAS: Re: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141532 Julie wrote: > > I think Harry does need to learn how to close his mind, or at least to control his emotions to some degree. Twice now Harry's gone half-witted while fighting someone because of his emotions, both> times trying to Crucio someone (first Bella, then Snape). Love may be Harry's saving grace, but his inability to control his emotions may also be his downfall--i.e. making decisions based on his strong emotions may save him or doom him. That's not unusual--one's greatest asset are often also one's greatest weakness, depending on how it is used. (Just as Snape's tendency to cold calculation has been both an asset, and his downfall in HBP.) > > > Alla responded: > > I am not sure I agree with you Julie and I think I agree with Nora > one hundred percent. > > At the end of OOP Dumbledore is incredibly clear, IMO. It is you > heart that saved you, period. Now, we were speculating non stop who > will teach Harry Occlumency in HBP. But nobody was teaching Harry > Occlumency, because IMO Dumbledore understood quite well after MOM > fiasco that Harry does not need it. > > I absolutely believe that "feelings" are what matters the most > in "Potterverse", not cold intellect. > Now, could you tell me which character tells Harry that he should > shut down his emotions, except Snape of course( and I would not say > that he understands Harry well at all. :-))? > > > What does Dumbledore say at the end of OOP? > > "Harry, suffering like this proves you are still a man!This pain is > a part of being human..." - OOP, p.824. > > I think that Harry should NOT give up his negative emotions either, > because without them he may be unbalanced in a sense. > > What I think Harry should learn is how to CHANNEL those negative > emotions better, NOT to give up them. I suppose maybe he would learn > how to channel them in too different kind of magic, NOT > Unforgivables. > > To sum up - NO, I don't believe that Harry should follow Snape > advice at the Tower at all, and this is one of the predictions I > feel quite confident to make for book 7. Harry will NOT learn how to > close his mind or anything like that. Now, preparing to eat a nice > tasty crow. :-) Carol responds: I do hope you have a nice, tasty recipe for crow, as I'm equally confident that Harry *must* follow Snape's advice--stay away from Dark magic, close your mouth (nonverbal spells), and control your emotions. Yes, a particular emotion (love) is the key to defeating Voldemort, but he's not going to find that path by Crucioing people and seeking revenge. And Voldemort isn't the only person he'll have to do battle with, IMO. He's not going to defeat Bellatrix with love. He'd better learn how to duel as well as Snape if he's going to take on DEs who've had time to recover from Azkaban. As for pain being part of being human, that's absolutely true. But it's not the key to defeating Voldemort. It's only a legitimate reaction to Sirius Black's death, which is the context in which the remark was made. And Snape may not understand Harry at all, but he understands Voldemort and the Death Eaters and what is needed to defeat them. He is not asking Harry to operate on cold intellect, which would be completely out of character. He's asking Harry to control his emotions, to conceal his intentions, to avoid the weapons of the enemy (Dark curses)--in short, to do what's necessary to preserve his soul intact and stay alive, both necessary conditions for defeating Voldemort. *Feeling* led Harry to the MoM on a wild goose chase that ended in Sirius Black's death. Harry should not stop feeling or caring, of course, but he cannot let his emotions control him. Snape may not be able to control his own emotions, but that in itself is evidence that his advice is good. If Harry ends up like Snape, we'd better kiss the WW goodbye. Carol From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 13 03:01:34 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 03:01:34 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Hunting was It wasn't Slughorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > On the Horcruxes in general, the whole process of tracking them down > seems too complex and time consuming using normal methods. Somehow > there has to be a shortcut, either the Horcruxes don't have the > significants that we currently believe, or Snape will find out how to > destroy them and help Harry do so, or Voldemort will get paranoid and > move the Horcruxes all to one location and that will simplify Harry hunt. I both agree and disagree. I think that the Horcrux is a huge task to hung around the neck of Harry and I wonder how he's going to do it yet I don't think that there's going to be a major short-cut or that the Horcruxs will be unimportant. I think that Harry finishing the task of destorying the Horcrux is a hugely important character development phase. The Harry that I saw in Half-Blood Prince showed signs of being able to complete this task...the appearance of cunning, guile, his general combat skills, his use of hard hitting spells, his willingness to actually notice the world around him, etc. I think that the Horcrux hunt is like the Tri-Wizard tournment in that it will cement someting inside Harry that will allow him to face Voldemort. Harry's training for the third task alone did a lot for him...the next year Hermione asks Harry to help tutor other students, including herself, in Defense Against the Dark Arts. The Horcrux hunt seems like the best way to accomplish two things with Harry: expose him to the larger wizarding world (in all sense of the word) and hope that he grows as a person and can perhaps see some of the mistakes that he MAY have made (Snape, his use of Dark magic, Slytherins, Draco, etc) and to furthur his "hands on" magical education. While the Hunt seems daunting at first it may actually require less time and effort (and danger...in the beginning away) then when I first read about it. Three Horcruxs are accounted for (the Ring, the Dairy, and Voldemort...the last still being inact), one is missing in action but probably not in Voldemort's hands or protections (the Locket), and three are unaccounted for (the Cup, the maybe!Horcrux Snake and the Founder object). The Locket is probably the easiet to destory since it's been removed for the protections of Voldemort...indeed I think that the summer before 7th year (if that even happens) is gonig to be spent on the locket (maybe a trip to Number 12 and a vist to Mundungus in Azkaban). That leaves only three to deal with and Harry seems to be working on the premise that one is being kept right beside Voldemort (the Snake). The "Founder Object" is probably the most difficult to find and the one where I believe Snape will help with. Then Harry basically has to find and overcome the defenses around the Cup before he attacks Voldemort (altough the order of Horcruxs destroyed doesn't matter...it could be different) and tries to kill the Snake and then Voldemort's body. Or maybe a little Rat will help him to lure away the Snake? Although finding the Cup is difficult I believe that a certain Death Eater (Bellatrix) may know where it is (she seems to imply that she's been trusted with a lot by Lord Voldemort in Spinner's End). Which also serves to settle the score in regards to Harry vs Bellatrix thing (or if Neville is along...). Quick_Silver (who actually hopes the Voldemort gets to win a lot in Book 7)...throwing out mainly conjecture and speculation From lily_paige_delaney at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 10:08:56 2005 From: lily_paige_delaney at yahoo.com (lily_paige_delaney) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:08:56 -0000 Subject: My new favorite line from HBP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141534 Chapter 8 - Snape Victorious Dumbledore has just announced that Snape is the new DADA teacher. Harry: "Well there's one good thing" he said savagely. "Snape'll be gone by the end of the year." "What do you mean?" asked Ron "That job's jinxed. No one's lasted more than a year...Quirrell actually died doing it. Personlly, I'm going to keep my fingers crossed for another death..." I just love this bit and then Hermione's outraged reaction! From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 03:44:07 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 03:44:07 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141535 > Carol wrote: > Are you sure about this (Bagman being a DE)? ... He gets off the charge by claiming that he didn't know that his father's old pal Rookwood was a Death Eater. Goddlefrood writes: I am currently persuaded, due to matters pointed out in my article that Bagman is a DE. I am, of course, as all theorists should be, open to contrary persuasion. > Carol wrote: > The chains on his chair rattle > ominously but don't bind him... If the chair magically knows who is guilty and who isn't (it doesn't bind Harry > during *his* trial in OoP), then he's telling the truth. Goddlefrood responds: What makes you think the chair is aware of guilt or otherwise. Anyway Bagman could be more skilled than we have so far been led to believe. > Carol Wrote: > True (that Bagman played Beater), but Viktor Krum is the Seeker for Bulgaria and no one is accusing *him* of being a Death Eater. Goddlefrood: That Bagman was a Beater is suggestive of his size. Beaters are indicated to be rather burlier than other Quidditch players, thus leading me to suspect that Bagman is a large man, that is apart from the other supporting quotes in my article. > Carol: > From the standpoint of GoF as a detective novel (who put > Harry's name in the cup?), Bagman is one of the suspects who are > conveniently gathered for us in "The Four Champions" Goddlefrood: If it accepted as a detective novel, and it has many of those traits, then you have a valid point. It is not entirely a detective novel, however, it is in fact part of an ongoing saga and I do not think it is unfair to take more out of it than first glimpsed, as I have done, and apply that to the continuing story. > Carol: > Sorry. No QED. Goddlefrood: You represent this as the entirety of my argument, which is rather unfair. There are other descriptive details I refer to in my article that back up Bagman being the BBDE, if not as a loyal DE. The whole theory started off only from the basis that Bagman was the BBDE and grew from there, by the way. > Carol: > Christine has already convincingly addressed this point so I won't > comment. I do agree that the brutal-faced DE is Yaxley (and Amycus and > Alecto are the Carrows). Otherwise, why would JKR have Snape give > those names in "Spinner's End"? Or the BBDE, as you call him, could be > Yaxley. Goddlefrood: See my response to Cristina for an explanation of this. > Carol: > Why wasn't he in the > graveyard and why haven't we heard from him since? Goddlefrood: Who says he was not in the graveyard? This point is far from proven. I do not accept that we are aware who was actually present in the graveyard as certain others have said. Snape in "Spinner's End" mentions Yaxley, the Carrows, Greyback and Rookwood, later we meet Gibbon (when dead admittedly). None of these, except possibly Rookwood, are referred to in the graveyard scene. This is suggestive that several DEs were present who have not yet been indentified, and may never be. > Carol: > And none of the DEs present showed up late and out > of breath as Bagman would have had to do if he ran from the Quidditch Field to get his cloak and mask and then ran to Hogsmeade to apparate. Goddlefrood: As you yourself point out, Bagman was a sportsman. The gates of Hogwarts are the boundary and according to JKR's map are not far from the Quidditich pitch. Apparition is not shown to be an energy sapping process. Bagman disappeared after the third task, but it would be at lease half an hour or an hour before the DEs appeared in the graveyard. (Voldemort being reborn and talking to Harry before their arrival for instance). > Carol: > The BBDE appears to be clumsy. Goddlefrood: Not if you read the text closely and have some suspicion that the BBDE is not all bad as I do. Of course you may be correct that Bagman is being held by goblins. This may or may not have come to Bill's attention, goblins are after all a secretive lot. Toodle pip From charybdisxv at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 04:17:06 2005 From: charybdisxv at gmail.com (Charybdis) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:17:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Wands In-Reply-To: <20051012185400.2947.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051012185400.2947.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141536 On 10/12/05, Michell Thitathan wrote: > truthbeauty1 wrote: > What I am confused about is that if Ollivander has made L.V a > new wand, will it work as well as the wand that "chose him". I don't see how > it would work as well, and I > can't see L.V. using a wand that did not suit him properly. > CH3ed replies: > I think both LV and Harry would still be using their > own brother wands to the end.That seems to be their destiny (but I'm just > speculating, of course).. but as far as we know one would have to have been > disarmed (or dis-wanded?) or unable to draw his wand and say a curse at the > same time that he is cursed, for one to successfully kill the other. > Otherwise the scene in the graveyard would be repeated, and not just one > bead of light but many beads will be forced by one into the others wand and > instead of the affected wand just vomiting out its past deeds it would just > be destroyed altogether? > Charybdis responds: I think for Harry to effectively fight Voldemort one-on-one with regular magic, he'd have to master wandless magic. Perhaps this was why the subject of wandless magic was discussed again in book 6. Harry does have some very promising ability to do unconcious magic; if he is able to master his power wandlessly, he could finally show some more outstanding magical abilities. -- Charybdis From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 13 13:48:43 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:48:43 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141537 Betsy Hp: > I've been a proponent of "Slytherin does not equal evil" for quite > a while. So I was thrilled that Slughorn was introduced. At the > same time, I do agree with both of you that Slughorn is not a > perfect man. By a long shot. > BUT, Slughorn does not support Voldemort. And Harry realizes > this. This is huge, IMO. Because, until HBP, Harry seemed quite > sure (and by extension many readers seemed to think) that Slytherin > house was the first stop to becoming a Death Eater. The fact that > Harry was able to recognize Slughorn's weaknesses but still not > classify him as evil is the first step in Harry realizing the worth > in Slytherin. > > For this reason, I doubt Slughorn will be shown to have even *more* > weaknesses. In other words, I doubt he had anything to do with the > potion in the cave.... SSSusan: I can't decide if I'm just a wishy-washy fence-sitter or if it's to be expected that I'd change my mind rapidly on this topic, given that I've just begun to contemplate it. ;-) Regardless of the answer to that, Betsy, you've made what I consider to be an excellent point here about why it might *not* make much sense for Sluggy to have brewed the cave potion. I mean, I still LIKE the possibility, and I could definitely see it having happened for the reasons presented upthread -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141283 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141442 -- but I think you're right that the time has passed for it to have been presented. IOW, it would have fit well into HBP as another revelation about Sluggy and how he, while not a bad sort really, is self-absorbed and self-interested and a networker who might do some pretty shady things unwittingly (or hesitantly) along the way to supporting others to positions of power & influence. However, as you point out, Harry has actually *learned* from Sluggy the lesson that a person's being weak or having made mistakes DOESN'T make the person evil or a DE. And if JKR were to introduce Sluggy as cave-potion-brewer in Book 7, it really might work against that, might water down that message which actually sank in to Harry. For that reason alone, I suspect you're right that it wasn't Slughorn who made the potion. So that leaves me pondering a couple of questions: 1) Who DID brew the potion? Was it Voldy? Voldy alone? Voldy with someone's help? If with someone's help, then WHOSE? 2) What WILL Slughorn's role be in the remainder of the saga? Anybody want to make some predictions on this?? Siriusly Snapey Susan, who really enjoyed Sister Magpie's analysis of Slughorn in 141450. From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Thu Oct 13 13:03:39 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:03:39 -0000 Subject: Souls, ripped and otherwise Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141538 The question that has started to fascinate me ? especially in view of all the recent posts about the effects of causing someone's death ? is, what in the Potterverse constitutes a soul? We heard, with Harry and Luna, sounds of twittering conversation from behind the veil. Luna is confident that they are the dead. How does she know? By faith? By optimism ? who would not want to see their beloved parents again? Just by having been born into the WW and knowing things that Muggle-reared Harry does not? And are these the "souls" of the dead, assuming that she's right, or are they something else? The images in portraits and photographs seem to be capable of interacting with living people; obviously the headmasters and headmistresses, but also poor Penelope, hiding her pimply nose behind the picture-frame. But perhaps they can't interact on a creative level? You could ask a headmistress about school admin and get an answer, but she might well not be able to make up a story or a knitting pattern if she didn't do such things in life. And the images in the Mirror of Erised are similar. Harry's family wave at him cheerily, but nothing more. Just doing what they would have done in life to a beloved baby. So, can we eliminate these images as storage places for souls, and count their apparent liveliness as just preserved fragments of their own former reality? And yet we know that there are souls, and they do get damaged when murder is committed. And JKR loves Macbeth ... "This even-handed justice commends the contents of our poisoned chalice to our own lips". Deliberate, destructive damage to someone else causes destructive damage to the soul of the murderer. So far, so good. How long does this last? We know that LV is fleeing from death; he demands physical immortality, being perhaps unwilling to take the leap in the dark which is faith in an immortal soul. So his soul, if it will never be immortal, must be redundant. Disposable. Rippable. And he might as well use it to do something useful, like horcrux creation. I could imagine that when all the horcruxes (horcruces just doesn't look right!) are destroyed, the one wizard who shunned death most passionately could be the only one to suffer total and eternal extinction of self. Not a bad irony, but rather trite. Or is the WW definition of "soul" more like "moral centre of the self"? That would work all right, since most of the DEs conspicuously lack such a centre and kill without a backward glance. And then, on that assumption, there would be no Muggle-centric ideas of the harps and haloes kind of immortality, or indeed eternal lakes of fire etc either. The damage to the moral centre of the self would last for a (wizard-length) lifetime only. (But the veil?) Like other wounds and injuries to the body, it is possible that a ripped soul could mend itself and the repentant murderer could regain moral wholeness. Do I hear the faint squeaking of a distant rat? The trouble with understanding WW souls is partly that we have never been told what they are, but also that most people aren't clear in their minds about Muggle souls. Lots of Muggles say that they believe in the immortality of the soul, but their own words and behaviour seem to suggest otherwise. (Twenty thousand souls died in the disaster, people say. Really? Why not say that twenty thousand people died, or even bodies?) What do witches believe? Or are they like Terry Pratchett's Discworld witches, who would never think of believing in gods because they knew them ? it would be like believing in the milkman. Like Luna, in fact, confident of her own reality. Godric's Hollow seems like a useful place to start finding out. Deborah, who doesn't think the ghosts prove anything either way (but she's been wrong before!) From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Thu Oct 13 14:15:44 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:15:44 -0000 Subject: Amazingly accurate predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > Remember before HBP, there were listees that predicted there was more > than one piece of Voldemort in the WW, and that Snape would end up > shooting Dumbledore, that potions would be the big doo dah in book > six... etc... > > Although we are a bit hit and miss around here, the hits are pretty > amazing, you gotta admit. I recently trawled the database of > recomended posts, and found a couple of threads that I thought should > be ressurrected post HBP. Y'know, narrow the chances that after book > seven we'll be looking at the FP section and saying to ourselves > "Shame we got sidetracked by the latest book, hey?" Elyse: I trawled through the recommended posts also, and in relation to the current posts carrying on about Snape I was absolutely dumbstruck - yes, dumbstruck, flabbergasted, kerflummoxed, call it whatever you want - to find this post about Snape being the Hog's Head eavesdropper, which was of course dead on target. It goes on to speculate about why JKR might assign this role to Snape and whether he might be OFH/ESE/DDM etc. I found it completely shocking that someone could have made such accurate predictions about the plot and which book this might happen in without some serious Divination. I really want everyone to check it out. As I dont know how to make this a real link, all I can do is give you the number - its 69563. I think that it might be relevant to the Snape discussions going on. Elyse From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Thu Oct 13 14:55:38 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:55:38 -0000 Subject: Horcrux hunting (was: Re: It wasn't Slughorn) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141540 Steve: > On the Horcruxes in general, the whole process of tracking them down > seems too complex and time consuming using normal methods. Somehow > there has to be a shortcut, either the Horcruxes don't have the > significants that we currently believe, or Snape will find out how to > destroy them and help Harry do so, or Voldemort will get paranoid and > move the Horcruxes all to one location and that will simplify Harry > hunt. I agree entirely: how can Harry possibly hunt *four* horcruxes before he can face Voldemort in, say, 600 pages, and not turn book 7 into something entirely different from the rest of the series? This would make book 7 'unexpected' in a rather disappointing way; I hope it will not happen. Nicolau From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 15:42:12 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:42:12 -0000 Subject: My new favorite line from HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141541 "lily_paige_delaney" wrote: > Harry: > > "Well there's one good thing" he said savagely. "Snape'll be gone by > the end of the year." > > "What do you mean?" asked Ron > > "That job's jinxed. No one's lasted more than a year...Quirrell > actually died doing it. Personlly, I'm going to keep my fingers > crossed for another death..." > > I just love this bit and then Hermione's outraged reaction! > zgirnius: Me too! (Oh wait, that's not allowed...let me see...) Harry needs to be more careful what he wishes for... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 16:26:04 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:26:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? WAS: Re: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141542 > Carol responds: > I do hope you have a nice, tasty recipe for crow, as I'm equally > confident that Harry *must* follow Snape's advice--stay away from Dark > magic, close your mouth (nonverbal spells), and control your emotions. > Yes, a particular emotion (love) is the key to defeating Voldemort, > but he's not going to find that path by Crucioing people and seeking > revenge. Alla: Sure I do have it, I always keep it handy, if needed I may even share it. :-) Now, to avoid saying it after every sentence, I will say it now just my opinion and speculative at that, but I believe that canon provides some hints for it. IF for the sake of argument I will agree that Snape WAS giving advice, which I am not sure about in the first place, I will have to disagree again at least about the last part. "Controlling his emotions" is a question of degree, IMO and actually I don't remember Snape saying that Harry should control his emotions, more like shutting them down , if I remember the gist of what he was saying during Occlumency lessons and I don't think that "shutting emotions down" is the way to go for Harry. Be a bit more in charge , maybe? Being cold and emotionless, I seriously doubt it. Carol: > And Voldemort isn't the only person he'll have to do battle with, IMO. > He's not going to defeat Bellatrix with love. He'd better learn how to > duel as well as Snape if he's going to take on DEs who've had time to > recover from Azkaban. Alla: Unfortunately, I have to disagree again. There is only one book left. I am reasonably confident that Harry will go into final battle with the dueling skills he already has, that is especially if he is not going back to Hogwarts, IMO. (which I am not 100% sure, but I think that the probability is high enough) He would be concentrating on Horcurxes hunt with Ron and Hermione, IMO. I doubt that they will have time to do crash courses in advance defense. I think Harry's heart will play a chief role in Voldemort demease, not his dueling skills. And another prediction of mine is that Neville will finish off Bella, not Harry. Carol: > As for pain being part of being human, that's absolutely true. But > it's not the key to defeating Voldemort. It's only a legitimate > reaction to Sirius Black's death, which is the context in which the > remark was made. Alla: Well, yes of course, but I interpreted Julie's words ( sorry if I misinterpreted you, Julie) that Harry was not supposed to be doing that ( go half-witted after just witnessing Sirius and Dumbledore's death) and I am saying that IMO he is not supposed to do it any other way. Except not trying to use Unforgivables, of course. But that is why I said that Harry may have to learn to channel his negative emotions. I didn't work out the details, but I am sure JKR could do something like that if she desires. Carol: > And Snape may not understand Harry at all, but he understands > Voldemort and the Death Eaters and what is needed to defeat them. He > is not asking Harry to operate on cold intellect, which would be > completely out of character. Alla: Sorry, after Snape speech in OOP I think that is precisely what he asked Harry to do. "Fools who wear their emotions on their sleeves"( paraphrase). Carol: > *Feeling* led Harry to the MoM on a wild goose chase that ended in > Sirius Black's death. Harry should not stop feeling or caring, of > course, but he cannot let his emotions control him. Snape may not be > able to control his own emotions, but that in itself is evidence that > his advice is good. If Harry ends up like Snape, we'd better kiss the > WW goodbye. Alla: Again, if I were sure that Snape is asking Harry only to control his emotions, I may have felt differently, but so far I get the impression that Snape is asking Harry to get rid of them completely. And even though feeling indeed lead Harry to MoM, feeling is also that saved him from the possession. JMO, Alla. From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 13 16:19:05 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:19:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141543 > > Carol responds: > I do hope you have a nice, tasty recipe for crow, as I'm equally > confident that Harry *must* follow Snape's advice--stay away from Dark > magic, close your mouth (nonverbal spells), and control your emotions. > Yes, a particular emotion (love) is the key to defeating Voldemort, > but he's not going to find that path by Crucioing people and seeking > revenge. Chuckle. Well, if Alla does has such a recipe, perhaps she would be kind enough to put it in the files section for all of us to copy down. As for revenge -- well, what is the difference between revenge and justice? An interesting philosophical quandary, that. But if the difference is that justice must be impersonal or have no emotional component -- well, there truly is no such thing as justice in this world. But there are definitions of justice that see it as being intimately related to revenge. Closing his mind or Occlumency? Hmmmm. If that's a necessary component of Harry's fight against Voldemort, JKR surely has screwed up. We've had an entire book where she spun her wheels on the subject, and NOW it's going to come back as a big theme? Chalk up another mark on the "idiot Dumbledore" chart. > > > And Snape may not understand Harry at all, but he understands > Voldemort and the Death Eaters and what is needed to defeat them. He > is not asking Harry to operate on cold intellect, which would be > completely out of character. He's asking Harry to control his > emotions, to conceal his intentions, to avoid the weapons of the enemy > (Dark curses)--in short, to do what's necessary to preserve his soul > intact and stay alive, both necessary conditions for defeating Voldemort. > Well, that's making an awful lot out of a few nasty jibes thrown in the heat of battle -- especially from a man whose a terrible teacher in any circumstances. Not to mention it makes Snape out to be both a lot better person morally and a lot more in control of his own emotions and reactions than we have evidence of him being. Snape understands the DEs? He knows how to defeat them? He hasn't been doing a very good job, so far. Indeed, his understanding and his habit of suppressing his feelings and instincts seems to have led him right into a trap -- namely the UV (I personally think, by the way, that the "Spinner's End" reference is to a spider caught in his own webs). Not a good model to emulate, that. If Snape had listened to his instincts (presuming, for the moment he's DDM or OFH), he could have avoided it quite easily. Instead, he suppressed his feelings and spun a web of crafty intellect -- and look where it got him. Harry by listening to his feelings cost someone his life, but managed to avoid handing Voldy a major victory. Snape by suppressing his feelings cost someone his life, and Voldy gained a major victory in the bargain. Should Harry have been somewhat more in control that night at the MoM? Of course, although most of the blame for that catastrophe lies with other parties. Does Snape have much of anything to teach Harry on this score? Not really, unless Harry wants to make much worse and more tragic mistakes. Lupinlore From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 16:40:36 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051013164036.84798.qmail@web34914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141544 Charybdis wrote: "I think for Harry to effectively fight Voldemort one-on-one with regular magic, he'd have to master wandless magic. Perhaps this was why the subject of wandless magic was discussed again in book 6. Harry does have some very promising ability to do unconscious magic; if he is able to master his power wandlessly, he could finally show some more outstanding magical abilities." CH3ed: Did you mean wordless or non-verbal rather than wandless? Dumbledore was the greatest wizard who ever lived and he was defenseless without his wand. I think you can probably do minor accidental magic without a wand (like the young pre-school wizards do when they 'make funny things happen when they're upset,' but you probably need a wand to be able to channel your magical ability into making bona fide spells. Harry will surely need to master being able to work spells silently to survive book 7. I am looking for the last book to be the size of the Gulag Archipelago since it seems Harry has a lot more advanced magic to acquire and 4 horcruxes plus LV (whose power doesn't diminish with the loss of horcruxes) to vanquish. Maybe Fawkes will have a major role to play in regards to Harry's and LV's wands. After all their core came from Fawkes' tail. Perhaps Fawkes can neutralize the two wands in some way? CH3ed (who has started pacing the floor waiting for Book 7 and it probably won't be published for another 2 years!) From rh64643 at appstate.edu Thu Oct 13 15:43:05 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:43:05 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141545 > Charybdis responds: > I think for Harry to effectively fight Voldemort one-on-one with > regular magic, he'd have to master wandless magic. Perhaps this was > why the subject of wandless magic was discussed again in book 6. > Harry does have some very promising ability to do unconcious magic; if > he is able to master his power wandlessly, he could finally show some > more outstanding magical abilities. I don't remember any mention of wandless magic, just non- verbal spells. Remember when D.D. lost his wand he couldnt do any magic. I believe that with the exception of emotionally charged kind of elemental magic, a witch or wizard must have a wand to perform magic. At least that is what seems to be presented in the books. So while Harry could get his aunt to blow up and set that snake on Dudley, I dont think he can do proper magic, the kind that he will need to defeat L.V. without his wand. Why else would "Expelliarmus" be so important? truthbeauty 1 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 13 17:23:09 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:23:09 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141546 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: Truthbeauty1: > I have a question about wands. We know that Ollivander has either > left his store, or been kidnapped by the Deatheaters. (I personally > think he may be evil and went to them) We also know that Harry and > L.V. cannot do propper battle with their current wands because they > wont work properly against each other. What I am confused about is > that if Ollivander has made L.V a new wand, will it work as well as > the wand that "chose him". I dont see how it would work as well, and I > cant see L.V. using a wand that did not suit him properly. I was just > wondering if anyone had any ideas about how this might work into the > book. Geoff: Picking up this thread from the beginning, one or two thoughts have occurred to me. Voldemort knows from the Goblet of Fire incident that his wand can let him down at the crucial moment because of its link to Harry's wand. Perhaps he could have gone to Ollivander - not to ask him to /make/ a new wand - but force our wand expert to help him find a wand which would "choose" him (a wand with attitude I fear). There is nothing to stop a wizard having more than one wand is there? He could have a weekday wand and a Sunday wand. :-) So, having become chummy with a wand which didn't care whether its owner worked on the side of light or dark, our friend could set out to find Harry in the hope that this time, the tiresome lad wouldn't manage to run rings round him yet again. That could set a few alarm bells ringing if the news got out which may be why Ollivander appears to be incommunicado. Moving on to the subject of Dumbledore doing wandless magic, there does appear to be at least one case of him doing this. It is not a major example but it indicates that he could: '"Which means," Dumbledore called over the storm of applause, for even Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were celebrating the downfall of Slytherin, "we need a little change of decoration." He clapped his hands. In an instant, the green hangings became scarlet and the silver became gold; the huge Slytherin serpent vanished and a towering Gryffindor lion took its place.' (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.222 UK edition) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 13 17:58:42 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:58:42 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141547 > Geoff: > Moving on to the subject of Dumbledore doing wandless magic, there does > appear to be at least one case of him doing this. It is not a major > example but it indicates that he could: >snip quote< > (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.222 UK edition) Potioncat: I can't come up with the canon but I think Snape has also performed wandless magic, and so has Lupin. (Lupin would have been in PoA, with a flame.) I think if a healthy DD had been wandless on the Tower, the DEs would still have been in trouble. Wandless magic has come up from time to time on this list. Seems like we ran a thread of examples a while back. If I remember, we didn't agree on some of the examples...using the possibility that the wand just wasn't mentioned in the particular scene. Is the group interested in resuming that look, or does anyone know the post numbers to the thread? From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Thu Oct 13 16:18:33 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:18:33 -0000 Subject: Amazingly accurate predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141548 ellecain: > It goes on to speculate about why JKR might assign this role to > Snape and whether he might be OFH/ESE/DDM etc. I found it > completely shocking that someone could have made such accurate > predictions about the plot and which book this might happen in > without some serious Divination. > I really want everyone to check it out. As I dont know how to make > this a real link, all I can do is give you the number - > its 69563. I think that it might be relevant to the Snape > discussions going on. Nicolau: I heard somewhere the story that Oedipus had decided to answer "Man" to whatever the sphynx asked, never mind what exactly the question was. The comparable easy way to make impressive predictions in HP is to answer "Snape". I will let you think up the questions yourself ("Who is the half-blood prince?" is a good place to start). More seriously, the post is great and the speculation remains as relevant as ever. I particularly like this bit: Derannimer wrote: > 5. JKR is setting up Snape as a big moral challenge for Harry > at some point in the series. > (I am indebted for this one to someone who wrote a post about it. > I don't know who this person was, and I'm not trying to find it now. > But the post contained a line about how "Harry is heading down the > path to the rocky precipice where he shouts 'The Ring is MINE!'" > Post-writer, you know who you are, I suppose. Thanks.) Nicolau: I imagine Harry and Snape becoming friends, this positive attitude passing through the scar to Voldemort causing him to explode in a puff of noxious gas while screaming "This can not be!"... :-) Nicolau From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 13 18:19:31 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:19:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? WAS: Re: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141549 > Carol: > > And Snape may not understand Harry at all, but he understands > > Voldemort and the Death Eaters and what is needed to defeat them. He > > is not asking Harry to operate on cold intellect, which would be > > completely out of character. > > Alla: > > Sorry, after Snape speech in OOP I think that is precisely what he > asked Harry to do. "Fools who wear their emotions on their sleeves"( > paraphrase). Magpie: Actually, while I agree that Harry is presumably not supposed to develop the kind of distaste for emotion Snape implies here, I don't think "not wearing your emotions on your sleeve" is the same as operating on cold intellect or getting rid of your emotions. It's more a warning not to hand weapons to others. But still...I'm troubled at these implications about Snape vs. Harry. Not in canon, because I haven't yet seen where it's going there, but in this kind of discussion. Occlumency is not, I don't think, the key to anything for Harry as he can't do it and that seems to be fine. But Snape's parting shots do still sound like something Harry will have to learn in his own way--he's got to have something left to learn about his personality in the last book, after all. I agree that Harry's love is the thing that saves him etc., and since this is JKR's book she's going to control what defeats evil, but there's only so much moral weight you can give to something that's strictly tempermental before you lose credibility. Harry is openly emotional because that is his natural temperment. He can't hide his emotions for the same reason. Harry is our hero and so it's his personal strengths that will see him through, and the author has probably chosen a personality to which she herself most relates. The villains, by contrast, do happen to be more able to compartmentalize, but it can't come completely down to temperment. That would be like a person who is very athletic, for instance, saying, "Well, I'm athletic because I'm healthy and love life and therefore good. Bookish people are therefore afraid of life and unhealthy and therefore bad." You know what I mean? Any temperment can be good or evil, the trick is to make the best of your strengths, and seek a balance. It's just that our hero is going to be dealing with his own strengths and weakness, so that's what we're going to see. The moral of OotP is not that Harry must learn Occlumancy, but Voldemort still uses Harry's nature against him--and he's able to do this because Harry is still not mature, imo. Harry could not and should not ever become Snape, but he's not yet perfect himself. Given that the four houses represent the four elements, a balance between the basic natures of each seems implied in the story. In fact, Slytherin is the house of water, and water is emotion, not fire. Fire is Will. I do think a strong will is Harry's nature-- look at his ability to throw off Imperius. A mature Harry would have not been as vulnerable to Voldemort in OotP not because he'd lost his emotions but because of his strong will to resist being dominated. Harry's inability to compartmentalize fits nicely with that--he is not a fragmented person. He is always whole and so directs his will. Therefore when Voldemort manipulates Harry's emotions Harry confuses the two and his will is manipulated to do what Voldemort wants--that's exactly what happens. The Slytherin books (CoS and HBP) deal with love most openly. If we were talking about cold intellect, that would be air and Ravenclaw. (I do know the danger of basing things on some sort of outside magical system, but the author has openly said the houses correspond to the elements and I'm only saying things I see supported in the books themselves.) Slytherins may therefore be able to manipulate their emotions, but this does not have to imply giving them up. Their emotions do not contain the exact type of danger because they are compartmentalized, they don't have the Will that Harry does. Draco is the character JKR describes as a natural Occlumens (Harry is natural thrower-off of Imperius), yet he's not without emotion at all. In fact, his story in HBP seems to be partially about his freeing emotions he has unhealthily repressed with is own Will. I'm not making Draco and Harry equals here in the text here, but HBP did give them both tasks during the year. Harry did need to learn to consciously use emotions to support his will (like when he uses his dead mother to manipulate Slughorn) more in this book, and not allow his emotions to dominate his Will. (Harry's emotions want to jump Ginny early on, but he controls them. It is only when his entire self gives the okay that he acts on those emotions, setting his Will to getting the girl and of course succeeding.) The other kid, Draco, is encouraged to free the emotions he had repressed by Will. In both cases the dominant strength of the house (Will and Emotion) is the dominant strength of the boy, but only when used with the support of the other elemental strengths. It's not that Harry has to change his nature. On the contrary, to truly be himself is to claim his true strength, his Will, and connect to all the other elements of his personality through that. His emotions will always give strength to his will; he just can't let them *replace* his will. Draco and Snape have so far been weakened the opposite way, I think. So Harry does have to learn a bit from Snape there, but Snape has to learn from Harry as well. Harry, I'm confident, will learn what he has to learn. Snape quite probably won't. So far he hasn't, so he has not grown. He's still as Slytherin and so emotional as ever, driven by hate, but he's also still trying to repress it. -m From ragingjess at hotmail.com Thu Oct 13 19:10:47 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (jessicabathurst) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:10:47 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Tonks - LONG and rambling (was:Re: What's In A Patronus?) In-Reply-To: <20050922030333.GA31150@4dot0.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141550 I've been meaning to respond to this post for a while. Since I'll be snipping and reordering a long and complex post within an inch of its life, those who'd like to read it in its eloquent original form can find it here. While I'm not entirely convinced of Narcissa!Tonks, I love the theory that someone else could be impersonating Tonks for the entirety of HBP. Tonks seems way too different in this book than in OotP, so something must be out of whack. ewe2/silmariel: > 1. There are several good reasons for Narcissa!Tonks: > a) Keeping an eye on both Snape and Draco > b) The patronus/metamorphagus question > c) Tonk's unexpected appearances > d) Tonk's ignorance > e) The legend doesn't fit. > We suspect that Snape and Narcissa may be in it together. This better > fits 2a. It covers the Vow (Spinner's End), Snapes interesting remark > about Patronuses (Snape Victorious pp152-153), the Polyjuice requirement, > and certain Tonks appearances. > Silmariel thinks two things: Snape Loves Narcissa. Snape's Patronus is a > dragon. Yes, we *do* mean Draco. Never awaken a sleeping Dragon, or daddy > Snape. Jessica: *sonorous voice* Draco, search your feelings. You know it to be true. Since my only requirement for enjoying Book 7 is that no character be (shockingly!) revealed to be the parent of another character, I'm going to propose another alternative. Narcissa!Tonks is on her own. This leaves a number of questions unanswered - mainly, how did Narcissa kidnap Tonks, and how does she maintain the transformation? Which leads me to my next thought: Metamorphmagi are rare, and you have to be born one. Does it run in families? Could Narcissa be a metamorphmagus? (I know, I know, what are the odds? But hey, it's only a theory.) Maybe she doesn't need the Polyjuice at all. Of course, having Snape in on the whole Narcissa!Tonks plan would allow him to recognize her Patronus when she sends it. I've been wondering how Patronuses carry their authorship if you can change their shape. How would Tonks expect to know that *she* was sending a message to Hagrid, if her Patronus changed? Are members of the Order in the habit of answering strange Patronuses, just in case someone's changed their signal, in the same way that I sometimes read the contents of my spam email file? ewe2/silmariel: > 2. Molly's involvement: > We assume either that Molly is (a) inadvertently backing up Narcissa's > cover or (b) is actively involved. (Spinner's End) > While not ruling out Silmariel's idea below, Molly is ideal protection > for Narcissa's cover. She provides Narcissa with the means to track OotP > movements whilst also diverting others from close inspection by > championing the "unrequited love" legend. > Silmariel suggests that Molly may be in with Narcissa on the basis of > saving their children, which is a good motive. Jessica: I find it difficult to believe that Molly and Narcissa would be secret allies. Lucius Malfoy and Arthur Weasley came to blows in CoS, and in HBP Narcissa has her own nasty run-in with the trio. (What is it with shopping and the Malfoys? Apparently, capitalism is a corrupting force.) While Narcissa s certainly Slytherin enough to put all that unpleasantness on the back burner to help save her son, I'm pretty certain Molly isn't. However, considering Narcissa's skill at manipulating other people's emotions (assuming one believes she snookered Snape), it's not at all far-fetched to assume that Narcissa!Tonks could spin quite a tale of romantic woe for Molly, who'd not only believe it, but maybe do Narcissa!Tonks a few favors with regard to an order Member who shall remain nameless. *cough*Lupin*cough* Tracking the werewolf who's tracking the werewolf who likes to bite children and is running around with your son's new pals seems like a vigilant mom thing to do. On to the list of things that do not make sense re: Tonks in HBP: ewe2/silmariel: > The Patronus excuse is too weak, and in apparent conflict to canon (A > Very Frosty Christmas p319. What did Harry guess it was?). A metamorphagus > unable to metamorph (pp93-94, why didn't Ron think so? He immediately gets > contradicted) is believeable but not in conjunction with a different > Patronus. And where's the clumsiness, eh? (according to Fleur, ibid.) Jessica: Where's the clumsiness, indeed? In fact, since we don't know very much about Tonks, I find it interesting that the two things we know for sure about her don't make an appearance in HBP. Is Tonks less clumsy when she's grieving/in love? Why doesn't she ever metamorphose? ewe2/silmariel: > "Tonks" appears in odd places. She needs an excuse to be close to > Snape/Draco but wasn't assigned guard duty (p126 suggests she shouldn't > have been anywhere near the train or Hogwararts. Why the sudden change?), > but somehow manages it. So why was she elsewhere? (Silver and Opals p232) > Where was she really during the fight at Hogwarts? (The Phoenix Lament > p578 but see also p571 for an intriguing comment) Is her story credible? > But she is often near Draco, and conveniently not too close (3d for why). Jessica: YES! Tonks's sudden appearances are the heart of the confusion for me. Does Dumbledore have her following Draco? Are she and Snape working together thwart Draco from fulfulling his mission, or is she Dumbledore's secret backup plan? (I should confess here that I find this far more likely than Narcissa!Tonks, as fun as she is to consider.) Why does Harry compare Draco's weight loss to Tonks's haggard look? Do "guilt" and "stress" read the same as "lovesick"? Could Tonks be like Draco because they are, in fact, on the same side? Could Tonks be ESE? And most importantly, what does Snape think of Tonks? (Kidding. For the love of all that is good and holy, KIDDING.) Yours, Jessica [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Thu Oct 13 19:45:51 2005 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (Edis) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:45:51 -0000 Subject: Math of ripping (was: Every killing tears the soul?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141551 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ellecain" wrote: >Nowhere is it said that *every* killing rips the soul. > And if this was the case, Voldemort would have his soul in any > number of pieces by now. He has loads of people. GH itself would > not have happened. Lily and James' deaths had already torn his > soul. The significance of the magical power inherent in the number > seven would be lost. We all know that JKR is lousy at Mathematics. I rather suspect she may not have worked out the strict implications of the Canon procedural satement 'creating horcruxes as a rsult of ripping the soul in two' - unless there is a magical method not yet covered by Canon. The simpe case is creating first Horcrux. Murder done with inetntion of Horcrux creation. Soul rips in two, half goes to Horcrux, half stays in Voldy. No counting problems. But what happens for second Horcrux? Voldy has half his soul left in him. If this rips apart for the second Horcrux, a quarter of his original soul remains in Voldy and a quarter is encased in the second Horcrux For the third Horcrux, Voldy has a quarter of his original soul remaining. One eight stays with him, one eight encases in the third Horcrux. And so on, so that for the seventh Horcrux Voldy would be left with 1/128th of his original soul and 1/128th encased in Horcrux number seven. My reading of canon suggests that JKR does not intend to imply this, and implies instead that each Horcrux ends up with an equal share of Voldy's soul with an equal remainder in Voldy's body. That would be 1/8th of the original soul in each. Implying some interconnection between teh Horcruxes -which is contradicted by Canon statement on Voldy not being aware that two Horcruxes have been destroyed. I think there may be agenuine difficulty on this one that JKR may not have figured out as yet, even realise there is a problem. Or she may surprise as all! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 19:58:43 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:58:43 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141552 Carol earlier: > > > Are you sure about this (Bagman being a DE)? ... He gets off the > charge by claiming that he didn't know that his father's old pal > Rookwood was a Death Eater. > > Goddlefrood responded: > > I am currently persuaded, due to matters pointed out in my article > that Bagman is a DE. I am, of course, as all theorists should be, > open to contrary persuasion. Carol again: Evidently you're not, as I pointed out that he wasn't charged with being a Death Eater, only with aiding one, and you snipped that point. And I answered the other points in your post, stating that they can all be read as red herrings misleading us into believing that he put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. What evidence do you have that has not already been answered in GoF itself with the explanation that he's in debt to the goblins? I'm not persuaded that we should reject that explanation. > Carol earlier: > > > The chains on his chair rattle ominously but don't bind him... If the chair magically knows who is guilty and who isn't (it doesn't bind Harry during *his* trial in OoP), then he's telling the truth. > > Goddlefrood responds: > > What makes you think the chair is aware of guilt or otherwise. > Anyway Bagman could be more skilled than we have so far been led to > believe. Carol again: The chains bind the people we know are guilty of being Death Eaters: Karkaroff, the Lestranges (Bellatrix, Rodolphus, and Rabastan), and the fear-filled boy, Barty Crouch Jr. They don't bind Bagman; they only rattle ominously, suggesting that his crime, if any, is minor. And in Harry's case, they don't even rattle. So, yes, I think the chair can magically sense guilt, and I see no evidence that Bagman is skilled at anything other than Quidditch and "commentating." Barty Jr. we know to be a powerful wizard, and he is reduced to helplessness in that same situation. Bludgers to the head making Bagman "a bit of an idiot" (if he wasn't one already)? Do you have any canon evidence of his intelligence or power? I don't recall his casting any spell other than Sonorus. He could be a one-spell wonder like Lockhart. > Goddlefrood: > That Bagman was a Beater is suggestive of his size. Beaters are indicated to be rather burlier than other Quidditch players, thus leading me to suspect that Bagman is a large man, that is apart from the other supporting quotes in my article. Carol: I'm not disputing that Bagman is a large man, or that he's blond. Obviously, he's both. I just don't think that's sufficient evidence for concluding that he's the same person as the Big Blond Death Eater. I have no doubt that there are many large blond wizards in the UK. It's like saying: Carol is skinny and wears thick glasses that magnify her eyes (true statement). She must be the same person as Professor Trelawney. (Shh! Don't reveal my secret!) Seriously, the BBDE could as easily be Sturgis Podmore, who is also blond and should be out of prison by now, but we haven't heard a word about him. > Carol earlier: > > From the standpoint of GoF as a detective novel (who put Harry's name in the cup?), Bagman is one of the suspects who are conveniently gathered for us in "The Four Champions" > > Goddlefrood: > If it accepted as a detective novel, and it has many of those traits, then you have a valid point. It is not entirely a detective novel, however, it is in fact part of an ongoing saga and I do not think it is unfair to take more out of it than first glimpsed, as I have done, and apply that to the continuing story. Carol again: I'll grant you that detective story is one of several genres that JKR employs, others being the heroic epic and the bildungsroman. Certainly some characters, for example Wormtail and Snape, are part of the continuing story, and it's possible that Bagman is as well. But the characters we know to be important to the continuing story were introduced in the first book, with hints in the case of Scabbers of what was to come (though we didn't recognize them as foreshadowing at the time). Even Sirius Black, who dies in Book 5, is first mentioned in Book 1. But Ludo Bagman, IIRC, first appears in GoF and has disappeared from the story. I expect that we'll hear what became of him, just as we did with Karkaroff, but I see no evidence so far of his importance outside the detective story element of GoF. > Carol earlier: Why wasn't he in the graveyard and why haven't we heard from him since? > > Goddlefrood: > Who says he was not in the graveyard? This point is far from proven. I do not accept that we are aware who was actually present in the graveyard as certain others have said. Snape in "Spinner's End" mentions Yaxley, the Carrows, Greyback and Rookwood, later we meet Gibbon (when dead admittedly). None of these, except possibly Rookwood, are referred to in the graveyard scene. This is suggestive that several DEs were present who have not yet been indentified, and may never be. > Carol again: Yes, I conceded the point that there are unidentified DEs in the graveyard but you snipped my concession. As you note yourself, we've found out the names of about half a dozen of these people. But Bagman's name has not come up. Granted, there's no proof that he wasn't in the graveyard, but there's no evidence whatever that he was. Carol earlier: > > And none of the DEs present showed up late and out of breath as Bagman would have had to do if he ran from the Quidditch Field to get his cloak and mask and then ran to Hogsmeade to apparate. > > Goddlefrood: > As you yourself point out, Bagman was a sportsman. The gates of > Hogwarts are the boundary and according to JKR's map are not far > from the Quidditich pitch. Apparition is not shown to be an energy > sapping process. Bagman disappeared after the third task, but it > would be at lease half an hour or an hour before the DEs appeared in > the graveyard. (Voldemort being reborn and talking to Harry before > their arrival for instance). Carol responds: Snape knows exactly at what point Voldemort summons the DEs to the graveyard. So does Karkaroff, who runs away at exactly that point. Surely Snape or Crouch Jr. under Veritaserum would have remarked about Bagman's disappearance if it had occurred at exactly that time. But Bagman thought that he had won his bet (that Harry would win the tournament). It's only after he meets with the goblins, who tell him that the TWT ended in a draw and he's lost the bet that he disappears. And the DEs don't take half an hour to arrive after they're summoned, which occurs *after* Wormtail has restored Voldemort to his adult-sized body. Voldemort touches the mark on Wormtail's arm and says, "How many will be brave enough to return when they feel it? And how many will be foolish enough to stay away?" He paces "for a minute or so," speaks a few words to Harry, paces again, speaks a few more words, then they appear, hooded and masked, all at about the same time (GoF Am. ed. 646). But Bagman would have had to rush from the stadium with all eyes on him (like the coward Karkaroff, who fears the revenge of the DEs so much that he doesn't care who sees him), run and get a cloak and mask (did he keep one at Hogwarts, just in case? I doubt it), run to Hogsmeade (you can't Apparate from Hogwarts or its grounds), and show up late (as no one does). Or show up in his Wimbourne Wasp robes, as he obviously didn't do. And then surely he would have reappeared at some point, explaining his sudden departure, and resumed his role as head of Magical Sports and Games, just as Lucius Malfoy and the other DEs return to their normal lives. The debt to the goblins gives a very good reason for him to run away. Appearing at the graveyard (assuming that he could manage it) doesn't. > > Goddlefrood: > Not if you read the text closely and have some suspicion that the BBDE is not all bad as I do. Carol: Not all bad? He unquestionably sets fire to Hagrid's house (602) and he apparently Crucios Harry (603). And believe me, I've read the text closely. It's an obsession I'm sure you're familiar with. > Goddlefrood: > Of course you may be correct that Bagman is being held by goblins. This may or may not have come to Bill's attention, goblins are after all a secretive lot. Carol: Or he might still be hiding from them. But if the Twins know why Bagman ran away (they explain it to Harry, GoF 731-32), then surely Bill does, too. I do expect to hear from Bill in connection with the Goblin Liason Office (he names a specific goblin, Rudbag or something that sounds like an Orc from LOTR in OoP--sorry I can't find the page number). So we'll probably hear from Bill regarding Bagman, too. (One more loose end to wrap up, like the death of Karkaroff mentioned in passing in HBP.) Meanwhile, I accept George's judgment that Bagman is a "stupid git" who "wouldn't have the brains" to be involved in the TWT kidnap plot (731). > Goddlefrood: > Toodle pip Carol: Ah, you must be British! We Americans don't have any equivalent (unborrowed) expressions that I can think of, sad, colorless lot that we are. Carol, expecting to be proven wrong on that last point at OT Chatter From ragingjess at hotmail.com Thu Oct 13 20:02:42 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (jessicabathurst) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:02:42 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: <191.498f3ac0.307dd7c6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141553 Julie: > It makes me wonder if Snape really DID know the plan, if when he > said "I am one of the few the Dark Lord has told" he was telling the > truth. After all, if he is making this up, and Bella tells Voldemort that > Snape claimed to know the plan, what is Voldemort going to think > of Snape, lying about how much he knows? It won't do much for > Snape's trustworthiness in Voldemort's eyes. > > *If* Voldemort did tell Snape of the plan, and Snape then told > Dumbledore, then Snape would be well aware of what kind of > task Draco is expected to complete, before he took the vow. He, > and Dumbledore, may have expected it, or at least expected > Narcissa to come to Snape for help. Whether they forsaw the > Vow, especially the third provision, is arguable (I suspect they > didn't expect the third provision, given Snape's hand twitch.) > This makes culpability more difficult to assign, I think. Snape > went in expecting to cement his relationship with Narcissa, via > protection of her son. And Dumbledore was aware of Snape's intent, > perhaps hoping the final result would be bringing the Malfoys over > to the Good side. But it went awry when Narcissa tacked on that > third provision. > Snape could have pulled out of it once that third provision was > spoken, but he didn't. Perhaps Dumbledore told him to do whatever > he must to protect Draco, or Snape took it on himself to follow > through, to avoid jeopardizing his precarious position among the > DEs, figuring at the time he'd find a way to get of it later. Either > way, if Snape and Dumbledore knew about Draco's task from the > beginning, it's a different story. I think you're right - Snape did know about the assignment, and Dumbledore tasked him with protecting Draco, which Snape may well have planned to do anwyay. At Spinner's End, Snape volunteers to Narcissa that he'll look out for Draco and thinks he's scored a real coup by taking an Unbreakable Vow to that effect...until that last bit. (I am assuming, of course, that Snape does not actually want to kill Dumbledore. Because that's what I do. ) Bella's comment about Snape "slithering out of action" in HBP may be setting us up for the fact that the murder of Dumbledore may, in fact, be the first murder that Snape has committed. (Hence the notorious UV twitching.) While I would not find that scenario either realistic or dramatically satisfying, it may add some weight to the thought that Snape thought he could get out of the UV in some fashion, because he's managed to twist his way out of what must have been some hairy situations in the past. Ironically, if Snape has been tasked to protect Draco (and in the Dumbledore way of things, he means Draco's soul as well as his body), he would only have to kill Dumbledore if that task succeeded - if Draco gave up the idea that he could be a murderer. Yours, Jessica (who wonders: if Snape is Jewish, does the Kol Nidrei absolve him of an Unbreakable Vow? How would that work, theologically?) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 20:08:57 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:08:57 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Hunting - Time, Skill, Knowledge, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > On the Horcruxes in general, the whole process of tracking them > > down seems too complex and time consuming using normal methods. > > Somehow there has to be a shortcut, either the Horcruxes don't > > have the significants that we currently believe, or Snape will > > find out how to destroy them and help Harry do so, or Voldemort > > will get paranoid and move the Horcruxes all to one location and > > that will simplify Harry hunt. > quick_silver71: > > I both agree and disagree. I think that the Horcrux is a huge task > to hung around the neck of Harry and I wonder how he's going to do > it yet I don't think that there's going to be a major short-cut or > that the Horcruxs will be unimportant. > > I think that Harry finishing the task of destorying the Horcrux is > a hugely important character development phase. The Harry that I > saw in Half-Blood Prince showed signs of being able to complete this > task...the appearance of cunning, guile, his general combat skills, > his use of hard hitting spells, his willingness to actually notice > the world around him, etc. ...edited... > > ...edited... > > While the Hunt seems daunting at first it may actually require less > time and effort .... ... I think that the summer before 7th year > ... is gonig to be spent on the locket (maybe a trip to Number 12 > and a vist to Mundungus in Azkaban). bboyminn: Time is the critical aspect here. As I've said before, if the next book was able to cover a five year span then Harry might have a chance, but it all has to happen in one year along with all the other 'stuff' that we know must happen in the next book (Godrics Hollow, Bill's Wedding, other...). It's easy to say that Harry will go to 12 Grimmauld Place and visit Mundungus in Azkaban, but how would he even know to do that? We have all made the connection between the Locket THROWN AWAY at Grimmauld Place and the Horcrux Locket, but what could possibly occur in the books for Harry to make that connection? Then, if and when the connection is made, how will he find a Locket that's been thrown away? Time... time.. time... even if Harry can do all this, how much time will it take? How much time to realize it, and how must time to track it down, how much time to retrieve it, how much time to destroy it? Then that is only one of many, how much time to determine, decide, find, overcome, capture, and destroy the Founder's Horcrux? A lot I think. > quick_silver71: > > That leaves only three to deal with and Harry seems to be working > on the premise that one is being kept right beside Voldemort (the > Snake). The "Founder Object" is probably the most difficult to find > and the one where I believe Snape will help with. ...edited... > > Although finding the Cup is difficult I believe that a certain Death > Eater (Bellatrix) may know where it is ...edited... > > Quick_Silver bboyminn: While the known Horcruxes seem a near impossible task, the 'Founder's Horcrux' really is an impossible task. We don't know if it's Ravenclaw or Gryffindor, we don't know what it is, we don't know where it is, and we don't know anything about the many protections guarding it. Even if we did know 'what' and 'where', I don't see Harry with the skill to overcome the protections and destroy it. Look at the deep skill and intuition Dumbledore applied to find the fake!Locket. All of it was a complete mystery to Harry. How can Harry possibly gain that degree of skill and insight in just one book? It took Dumbledore 150 years. Further, Dumbledore was able to guess the probability of the cave being significant to Voldemort by using a deep insight into Voldemort's history and nature. Harry doesn't have that. Dumbledore was Harry's source of information and he is gone. I doubt that Harry even knows where to begin to find out more deep insight into Voldemort's history. Even then any conclusions he reaches are just guesses that have to be investigated. That all takes time, and time is something we don't have. To Harry's view, he has a lifetime to resolve this, but we as readers know that it must and will be resolved in less than a year, and to acquire all this rare and unfathomable knowledge in that amount of time seems impossible to me. Somehow some 'shortcuts' have to enter the picture. Somehow some new mysterious source of knowledge has to come into the picture; whether it be Snape or other. Even once he know 'what' and 'where' the Horcruxes are, we are then faced with Harry's lack of skill in dealing with them; overcoming the protections and destroying them. It's a difficult task with 5 to 10 years to accomplish it, and that assumes using a team of researchers, but to accomplish it in less than a year using conventional means seems next to impossible. So, I conclude that there is a 'shortcut', that is, some aspect of the story that we don't realize yet. Maybe Snape's new position as Voldemort's favorite will make him privy to information that will help Harry. Maybe in the final battle the Horcruxes won't be as relevant as we seem to think they are now. Maybe some new source of information will be found. Maybe a new character will be introduced that will raise Harry's skill in curse breaking (hint: Bill). Maybe Voldemort will get paranoid and bring the Horcruxes all together in one location. Or, maybe none of the above, but I just don't see Harry accomplishing the task at hand using standard methods and his current skill level. Even with a substantially increased skill level, he still falls far short of the mark. I do agree with your basic assessment of Harry progress in the next books; about his growth as a person and as a wizard, but I just don't see that alone as enough to solve the obvious problems. I predict the next book will either be the most stunning achievement of all time, or the greatest disappointment; whatever it is, I supect it will be at the extremes of the scale, nothing in between. Steve/bboyminn From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 20:35:38 2005 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:35:38 -0000 Subject: Emotions on their sleeves (WAS: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141555 Alla wrote: > "Controlling his emotions" is a question of degree, IMO and > actually I don't remember Snape saying that Harry should control > his emotions, more like shutting them down, if I remember the gist > of what he was saying during Occlumency lessons and I don't think > that "shutting emotions down" is the way to go for Harry. Be a bit > more in charge , maybe? Being cold and emotionless, I seriously > doubt it. Carol wrote: > > And Snape may not understand Harry at all, but he understands > > Voldemort and the Death Eaters and what is needed to defeat > > them. He is not asking Harry to operate on cold intellect, which > > would be completely out of character. > Alla responded: > Sorry, after Snape speech in OOP I think that is precisely what he > asked Harry to do. "Fools who wear their emotions on their sleeves" > (paraphrase). > so far I get the impression that Snape is asking Harry to get rid > of them completely. zeldaricdeau now: I'd like to put forth my own take on Snape's advice to Harry. Snape's words are: "Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily--weak people, in other words-- they stand no chance against his powers!" (OotP pg 536 American Deluxe Edition) Apart from the fact that Snape is showing his own hypocrisy here-- after all, Snape, himself, is just as guilty as Harry of each of these things (IMO, of course)--I think the turn of phrase "wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves" is a significant one. To wear your heart on your sleeve is to let your feelings be plainly readable to anyone. In and of itself it implies that what Snape is warning Harry against is not the *feeling* of emotion but the *parading* of emotion. The latter is an act that may legitimately be a dangerous one when done around someone like Voldemort whose primary weapon, I would say, is his ability to discover and exploit people's emotional or psychological "weaknesses" so that he can manipulate them. In fact, to get pretty nitpicky and perhaps a little obtuse :), the verbs Snape chooses in this speech would seem to support the "control, not suppress" interpretation. 1.) "wear" -- here used to imply displaying something out in the open 2.) "control" -- the actual word "control" is used 3.) "wallow" -- implying a selfish excess of emotions or self-pity? 4.) "allow" -- a word filled with connotations of passive acceptance To my mind, none of these equate to "having or feeling emotions is a weakness" but rather to a kind of "laying all your emotional cards out on the table is just inviting people like Voldemort to come and manipulate you." Snape might as well be giving Harry advice about playing poker: you have to be careful about what you reveal and you can't "wear your cards on your sleeves." In fact, I would say that Harry, through the course of HBP, began to learn this lesson on his own. Harry seems a bit like myself in how hard-headed he can be when it comes to advice. He has to be bitten by the snake before he will really trust that it is dangerous. I think that the experience of Sirius's death led him to unconsciously gain a bit more of this control, to the point that he is actually able to do a little manipulation of his own on Slughorn in order to obtain the unaltered memory. Not that I hope Harry will become Snape. Favorite character of mine Snape may be, but he's not what I would set forth as anyone's role model :-). I agree that it will be love and Harry's immense capacity for it that will defeat Voldemort in the end, but in what form? Perhaps love in the hands of a Harry with a better sense of self-control and a will strong enough to direct it will be a deadlier weapon than love unbridled. Could love directed by will be the connection between love and choice, two of JKRs main themes? -ZR From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 20:52:49 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:52:49 -0000 Subject: Math of ripping (was: Every killing tears the soul?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141556 "Edis" wrote: > > The simpe case is creating first Horcrux. Murder done with inetntion > of Horcrux creation. Soul rips in two, half goes to Horcrux, half > stays in Voldy. No counting problems. zgirnius: Ah. The Mathematics of Soul Ripping. I cannot resist this thread... It is not creating a Horcrux that tears the soul, nor a murder done with intent to create a Horcrux. It is *any* murder. Was Riddle's first Horcrux created from his first murder? Not necessarily. So the soul bit placed in the first Horcrux could be much "smaller". "Edis" wrote: > so that for the seventh Horcrux Voldy would be left with > 1/128th of his original soul and 1/128th encased in Horcrux number > seven. zgirnius: According to Dumbledore, Voldemort has killed enough people to make an army of Inferi. Knowing V, I would guess the vast majority of these killings were murders. So again, the encased soul bits could be far "smaller", leabing far "more" of V's soul left in attached to his body. "Edis" wrote: > My reading of canon suggests that JKR does not intend to imply this, > and implies instead that each Horcrux ends up with an equal share of > Voldy's soul with an equal remainder in Voldy's body. That would be > 1/8th of the original soul in each. zgirnius: A quibble, 1/7 of the original soul in each, as there are six Horcruxes and one Voldemort. Seven, the most magical number, of bits. "Edis" wrote: > Implying some interconnection > between teh Horcruxes -which is contradicted by Canon statement on > Voldy not being aware that two Horcruxes have been destroyed. > I think there may be agenuine difficulty on this one that JKR may > not have figured out as yet, even realise there is a problem. Or > she may surprise as all! zgirnius: Here's what I think is going on. The image of an innocent soul as a pure white piece of cloth, and Voldemort's as a ragged, tattered, blackened, and bloody mess with missing pieces is compelling. (That's how I picture it myself...) But it is a metaphor, one which captures an important aspect of the Potterverse reality. (The hideousness of the act of murder vs. the attractiveness of innocence, in this case). But the soul is not actually a piece of cloth. Or any other known or unknown material substance. As such, it can't really be "measured" as one would measure a lenth of cloth with a ruler and rip it in half. (Hence my use of quotes around words describing relative sizes of soul bits). So I would argue all soul-bits are equal in "size", since none of them actually have a "size" which can be measured. The meaningful distinctions which can be made between them relate to their other properties. One difference is that one or more privileged pieces reside in the body of a Horcrux-making wizard. Those are what gets anchored in this world by the others, granting the wizard a form of immortality. Another, is that the soul bits which are permanently removed from the wizard by being encased in Horcruxes, cease to "grow". The soul bit in the diary seems to correspond with young Tom, having no memories of Tom's later doings. Presumably other soul bits, were they to be given a semblance of "life" as that one was, would remember V's life up to the point at which they were encased. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 20:56:29 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:56:29 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141557 > >>Nora: > No. Scabbers is the one genuinely grand case of the twist which > surpasses the boundaries of a single volume... Betsy Hp: That Voldemort is Slytherin's heir has an importance that goes beyond CoS. The fall of the house of Crouch is most probably limited to GoF, but the return of Voldemort is not. And, as I said, Voldemort's easy manipulation of Harry, while not as BANG-y to the readers, certainly has connotations beyond OotP, as does Sirius's death. > >>Nora: > ...(excepting the continually open question of Snape, which has > been left open enough and deliberately so that I don't really > count any resolution as a 'twist', more as simply finding out the > background). Betsy Hp: Ooh, I think you're *really* mistaken here. The resolution of Snape's story arc will send screams of either joy or pain throughout fandom. Folks on both sides of the issue are near positive they know the real story. Whatever reveal is made is sure to have some sort of twist element to it. Heck, the very fact that the Snape question is taking two books to answer is suggestive, IMO. And not of simple house-cleaning. > >>Nora: > But there are lots of dead or unproven/able theories (soon to be > riding the SCOW) which rely upon this kind of grand twist. > Betsy Hp: So? That many suggested twisty theories have been shown to be wrong doesn't mean there's not going to be any twist whatsoever. The twist is JKR's method of operation. As you point out in the part I snipped, every book has had a twist of some sort. It would be weird if the ending didn't, I think. > >>Nora: > Theories are fun for the sake of theories, but that's not what I'm > dealing with at all here. I'm on the canonical possibility and > prediction track, and that's where I think people are convincing > themselves it's going to be much more complicated than it really > is. I can imagine something legitimately considered twisty for > Snape's end, but I can also imagine something more direct. > Betsy Hp: It depends on your definition of complicated, I suppose. Each book has had it's own twist, some more BANG-y than others, most, IMO, not all that predictable. Snape has been involved in each of them. (Except for CoS, actually. Huh.) In a way, I think it's *less* direct to expect a Snape related twist to *not* occur. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > JKR's handling of the Slytherins in HBP strongly suggests, IMO, > > that the most straight forward reading is not necessarily the > > correct one. > >>Nora: > Not evil, but still venal and generally unpleasant? > Betsy Hp: Yup! The "not evil" bit is exactly it. I'd been arguing that point for a while and it was very nice to have it cleared up once and for all. Slytherins are just as human as the rest of the Hogwarts' student body. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 21:17:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:17:58 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141558 > >>SSSusan: > > So that leaves me pondering a couple of questions: > 1) Who DID brew the potion? Was it Voldy? Voldy alone? Voldy > with someone's help? If with someone's help, then WHOSE? > 2) What WILL Slughorn's role be in the remainder of the saga? > Anybody want to make some predictions on this?? Betsy Hp: I'll take a crack, though I'll admit to the complete blandness of my prediction. Honestly, I think Slughorn's role is done. I think he'll be a background character, if he even shows up. Similarly, I don't think we'll get any kind of answer to the potion question, because it too, by weakening Dumbledore, has served its purpose. Of course, I could be wildly wrong and Slughorn will actually provide some crucial information (he was, after all, Snape's head of house). And it could turn out that it's *very* neccessary for Harry to find out what potion was in the cave and therefore seek out its brewer. However, JKR rarely travels back over familiar ground, IIRC, so I suspect she's going to move on. Betsy Hp From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 21:13:59 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:13:59 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > That Voldemort is Slytherin's heir has an importance that goes > beyond CoS. The fall of the house of Crouch is most probably > limited to GoF, but the return of Voldemort is not. And, as I > said, Voldemort's easy manipulation of Harry, while not as BANG-y > to the readers, certainly has connotations beyond OotP, as does > Sirius's death. But 'Voldemort as Slytherin's Heir' isn't particularly twisty, I'd say; it's something at least set up for us with the association of Slytherin and DEs. *Ginny* being the person doing the things is the twist at the end of CoS (just like the revelation of Crouch!Moody is the twist), but Voldemort returning? Eh, it's a major plot development, but it's not the 'thing we thought was one thing and turned out to be another', you know? > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, I think you're *really* mistaken here. The resolution of > Snape's story arc will send screams of either joy or pain > throughout fandom. Well, of course. :) I've been waiting for that Schadenfreude for some time. As at least some people are going to be screaming in rage no matter what happens, I'm counting on some first-rate entertainment. > Folks on both sides of the issue are near positive they know the > real story. Whatever reveal is made is sure to have some sort of > twist element to it. Heck, the very fact that the Snape question > is taking two books to answer is suggestive, IMO. And not of > simple house-cleaning. I think it's possible to resolve it without anything particularly twisty--which in this case, I'd classify as something that neither camp (or none out of three or so) has predicted. You know that it could be as direct as "this is actually what Snape did", without that kind of shock element. Neri wrote the bestest ever description of Snape and how JKR has constructed him once, which I think he should repost or link to. *nudge nudge* What it points out so elegantly is that Snape has always been based on withholds and deliberate construction out of minimal resources. My argument is that that's a surprisingly easy house of cards to collapse, when a character is built more in the minds of readers than on the page. (And that's simply empirical fact. If I were LOONier I'd count pages, but life is too short, and I have other things to read.) (I've been reading some unintentionally entertaining discussions of how that happened to some readers with Lupin, this past book. No one hangs himself as efficiently as a reader who falls in love with his own conception of the character.) > Betsy Hp: > So? That many suggested twisty theories have been shown to be > wrong doesn't mean there's not going to be any twist whatsoever. > The twist is JKR's method of operation. As you point out in the > part I snipped, every book has had a twist of some sort. It would > be weird if the ending didn't, I think. Dangerous extrapolation to assume, although possible. What I thought I'd been suggesting is that the fandom is overestimating and overvaluing the actual twist. I didn't think either books 5 or 6 had a terrible amount of extremely shocking surprises, the big event at the end of book 6 being the major one. Nothing says she has to twist at the end as well--it could be on a model where we move out of obscurity and into clarity and directness. >> >>Nora: >> Not evil, but still venal and generally unpleasant? >> > > Betsy Hp: > Yup! The "not evil" bit is exactly it. I'd been arguing that > point for a while and it was very nice to have it cleared up once > and for all. Slytherins are just as human as the rest of the > Hogwarts' student body. Just considerably less well-behaved and contributing to the welfare of the school than others, and to at least some conceptions of society as a whole (not to mention pesky lurking ideas like the Good). If Slughorn is a representative Slytherin, I suppose it's an improvement over Snape, Lucius Malfoy, and Voldemort. But then I can also specialize in damning with faint praise. :) -Nora prepares to slog through even more water... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 13 21:26:41 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:26:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? WAS: Re: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141560 Alla: > I absolutely believe that "feelings" are what matters the most > in "Potterverse", not cold intellect. Now, could you tell > me which character tells Harry that he should shut down his > emotions, except Snape of course( and I would not say that he > understands Harry well at all. :-))? > To sum up - NO, I don't believe that Harry should follow Snape > advice at the Tower at all, and this is one of the predictions I > feel quite confident to make for book 7. Harry will NOT learn how > to close his mind or anything like that. Now, preparing to eat a > nice tasty crow. :-) Jen: I'm not sure JKR is saying feelings matter more than anything else in Potterverse. She mentioned being a little reserved herself, and her author alter-ego Dumbledore is remarkably reserved as well (with good reason, I think, but still presented as emotionally contained). Dumbledore approved of Harry moving on from Sirius' death and not continuing to agonzie over it, he praised him instead for being like his parents and Sirius. Then when Harry finds out about Snape-as- Eavesdropper and attempted to master his strong emtotions so he could go on the cave expedition, Dumbledore didn't try to intervene and tell him to let it all hang out. ;) Dumbledore doesn't *tell* Harry to control his feelings, but rewards him when he's able to do so. A different approach from Snape, lol. Carol: > As for pain being part of being human, that's absolutely true. But > it's not the key to defeating Voldemort. It's only a legitimate > reaction to Sirius Black's death, which is the context in which the > remark was made. Jen: And Harry wasn't out of control with his emotions when he felt love and painful loss for Sirius; the heartfelt feeling which expelled Voldemort was a very specific, momentary feeling, not an on- going, rampant feeling like the hatred Harry feels for Snape. Dumbledore doesn't stop Harry from destroying his office in OOTP because he knows Harry has a very good reason to feel angry about Sirius, but he also doesn't support him when he starts to blame Snape or allow his hatred to take over the conversation. Another instance of rewarding the emotion he feels is important to Harry's well-being and ignoring/gently reprimanding the out-of-control emotions which could hurt Harry.(Dumbledore must have been a behavioral psychologist in a different life ). Dumbledore told Harry his heart saved him from Voldemort's possession, yet he offered Harry a slightly different explanation for why Occlumency wasn't necessary in HBP (besides Harry not being skilled at it). He told Harry: "Lord Voldemort has finally realized the dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been enjoying." (chap. 4). That's a very rational explanation, not an emotional one. Jen, reading ZC's post while writing this and can only say "I agree" about the Occlumency lessons. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141555 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 21:28:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:28:25 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? / Harry's emotions - his strength or weakness? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141561 > > >>Nora: > > ...(excepting the continually open question of Snape, which has > > been left open enough and deliberately so that I don't really > > count any resolution as a 'twist', more as simply finding out the > > background). > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, I think you're *really* mistaken here. The resolution of > Snape's story arc will send screams of either joy or pain throughout > fandom. Folks on both sides of the issue are near positive they > know the real story. Whatever reveal is made is sure to have some > sort of twist element to it. Heck, the very fact that the Snape > question is taking two books to answer is suggestive, IMO. And not > of simple house-cleaning. Alla: Erm.., of course the fans on both sides of the fence or in the middle would be screaming with joy or pain. :-) But that does not necessarily make the end of Snape's story arc to be twisty and BANGy. Yeah, we do not know details of Snape story life and why DD trusts him, but the bottom line is that he is either loyal to DD or loyal to Voldemort or loyal to himself only, IMO. It IS interesting to me to find which one, of course, but I doubt that I would find it twisty, even if the resolution would be not the one I expect. Because it is still could be one of those which is predictable regardless of which way it goes. > Betsy Hp: In a way, I think it's *less* > direct to expect a Snape related twist to *not* occur. Alla: What IS your definition of Snape related twist? > Magpie: > It's not that > Harry has to change his nature. On the contrary, to truly be > himself is to claim his true strength, his Will, and connect to all > the other elements of his personality through that. His emotions > will always give strength to his will; he just can't let them > *replace* his will. Draco and Snape have so far been weakened the > opposite way, I think. > > So Harry does have to learn a bit from Snape there, but Snape has to > learn from Harry as well. Harry, I'm confident, will learn what he > has to learn. Snape quite probably won't. So far he hasn't, so he > has not grown. He's still as Slytherin and so emotional as ever, > driven by hate, but he's also still trying to repress it. Alla: I loved your post, in fact I agree with a lot of it, except that again I am REALLY not sure that not letting his emotions replace his will is what Snape was trying to teach Harry. I am just not. It is a good advice and maybe Harry will learn that,a s long as he does not have as you said - changing his nature, but IMO Snape has NO clue what nature Harry has and when he says those words, he is thinking about himself only and what he IS thinking , IMO, is that he was a fool to show his emotions and therefore the same advice is good for Harry. Besides, you nailed it when you said that you are confident that Harry will learn what he has to, IMO. I am just not sure that Harry will learn it from Snape, that is all. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 21:45:49 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:45:49 -0000 Subject: Souls, ripped and otherwise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141562 Deborah wrote: > The question that has started to fascinate me ? especially in view of all the recent posts about the effects of causing someone's death ? is, what in the Potterverse constitutes a soul? > > We heard, with Harry and Luna, sounds of twittering conversation from behind the veil. Luna is confident that they are the dead. How does she know? By faith? By optimism ? who would not want to see their beloved parents again? Just by having been born into the WW and knowing things that Muggle-reared Harry does not? And are these the "souls" of the dead, assuming that she's right, or are they something else? > And yet we know that there are souls, and they do get damaged when > murder is committed. How long does this last? We know that LV is fleeing from death; he demands physical immortality, being perhaps unwilling to take the leap in the dark which is faith in an immortal soul. So his soul, if it will never be immortal, must be redundant. Disposable. Rippable. And he might as well use it to do something useful, like horcrux creation. I could imagine that when all the horcruxes (horcruces just doesn't look right!) are destroyed, the one wizard who shunned death most passionately could be the only one to suffer total and eternal extinction of self. Not a bad irony, but rather trite. > > > The trouble with understanding WW souls is partly that we have never been told what they are, What do witches believe? > > > Deborah, who doesn't think the ghosts prove anything either way (but > she's been wrong before!) Carol responds: You've forgotten one crucial element, the fate of people (wizard or Muggle) when their soul is sucked out by a Dementor. Something particularly horrible happens--apparently total annihilation of the essential self (or whatever the soul is). The physical body bereft of a soul can still die, I'm sure--Barty Jr. was still breathing after the Dementor left him--but whatever normally happens to the soul won't happen to his when his heart stops beating and his body ceases to function. And the Veil (or rather, whatever is beyond the archway that the Veil covers) certainly suggests that there's some kind of life after death (death is one of the mysteries that the DoM is studying, and the veiled archway is apparently the portal to that world or that state of being), as do the shadow figures emerging from Voldemort's wand with their personalities intact--even the old Muggle Frank Bryce. We also have Dumbledore's view of death as "the next great adventure," which suggests that he has faith in some sort of afterlife very different from the nothingness to which the soul-sucked Barty Jr. is condemned. (That punishment wouldn't be so horrible if it weren't regarded, even by the Muggle-born Hermione, as worse than death.) And the ghosts do, I think, tell us something about the existence of an afterlife. Dead wizards have the *choice*, as NHN tells Harry, of whether to stay on as shadows of their former selves or face what lies beyond. NHN chose to become a ghost, apparently because he was afraid to find out what happens to those who pass into the unknown. Interestingly, so did the Fat Friar, who would seem unlikely to choose ghosthood since he theoretically believed in a Christian heaven. (Then again, those medieval friars enjoyed their earthly pleasures if we accept Chaucer's corrupt friar as a typical specimen.) Sirius Black chose *not* to become a ghost, either because of his courage or because he felt no desire to linger near Hogwarts, much less Azkaban or 12 GP. (Maybe he also hoped to see James and Lily again, and he certainly knew that they had not become ghosts.) That doesn't take us any closer to what really lies beyond the Veil, but it certainly suggests that something is there (otherwise, there could be no choice): perhaps an eternal afterlife very different from the earthly immortality Voldemort craves (which at some point would surely become a burden, especially if immortality doesn't include immunity to old age. Tithonus, anyone?). I'm pretty sure that you're right about Voldemort denying himself spiritual as opposed to physical immortality because he has separated his soul fragments. (On a side note, perhaps the two kinds of immortality are symbolized by the wood in Voldemort's and Harry's wands: yew = earthly immortality and holly = eternal life, pagan vs. Christian ideas of immortality? JKR is after all, a Christian, though what vestiges we see of Christianity in the WW are wholly secularized. And DD's funeral service doesn't provide us with any clue as to what witches believe. It appears to be a wholly secular tribute to his memory, with only the enigmatic ghost phoenix or Patronus or whatever it is hinting at the fate of DD's soul.) To return to Voldemort, committing murder almost certainly damages the soul, but if the murderer doesn't rip off a fragment along the perforations, so to speak, and encase the fragment in a Horcrux, he still has his damaged soul within himself and therefore has access to whatever lies beyond (as well as, possibly, a chance for healing and redemption, but I don't want to discuss that here). IOW, Peter Pettigrew, to take a clearcut example of a wizard multiple murderer, can choose, as Voldemort cannot, to become a ghost or to face whatever awaits him in the afterlife because his mutilated soul is still within him. (Wonder if Ghost!Wormtail would still be an animagus, able to turn into a ghost rat? That might be a bit disturbing to the ickle firsties if he decided to haunt Hogwarts.) Snape, if he dies in Book 7, will face the same choice, and would make a most interesting ghost, though I believe that his courage would enable him to face the world beyond, especially if he's redeemed. But Voldemort, IMO, has denied himself either option. He must continue to exist in some earthly fashion, either "less than the meanest ghost" or embodied in his current snake-man form, or he will be annihilated as surely as if he'd shared Barty Jr's fate. If I'm right, the desire to become immortal has paradoxically denied him access to the true immortality beyond the Veil. Carol, who believes that Luna and Dumbledore are right but has no idea how we'll find that out From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 23:42:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:42:49 -0000 Subject: Zen and the Art of Harry's emotions - his strength or weakness? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > ...edited... > > > > Magpie: > > > > It's not that Harry has to change his nature. On the contrary, > > to truly be himself is to claim his true strength, .... His > > emotions will always give strength to his will; he just can't let > > them *replace* his will. ... > > > > So Harry does have to learn a bit from Snape there, but Snape has > > to learn from Harry as well. ... > Alla: > > I loved your post, in fact I agree with a lot of it, except that > again I am REALLY not sure that not letting his emotions replace his > will is what Snape was trying to teach Harry. I am just not. ... > > Besides, you nailed it when you said that you are confident that > Harry will learn what he has to, IMO. > > I am just not sure that Harry will learn it from Snape, that is all. > > > JMO, > > Alla bboyminn: First a brief apology, I have somewhat followed this thread but I haven't read everything. That said... What is Snape trying to teach Harry? Figuratively speaking, of course, it is ZEN. Emotions can be positive or negative. Certainly Harry's 'love' is a positive force, but his anger really can be a negative force. Harry is human, so certainly he will get angry; he will experience negative emotions. The question is whether he will let those negative emotions rule him in a time of crisis. I think that is the point Snape is trying to make whether he consciously realizes it or not. Certainly anger can motivate you, even compell you, but when it rules you, then the battle is lost before it begins. The same is true of fear. Only a fool feels no fear, and only a coward is /ruled/ by fear. So, Harry must accept his fear and anger, and move on. He must not let them rule him in the moment, especially in the moment of crisis. The Art of Zen is to remain calm and clear even in the face of anger or fear. That way you can react instantly to whatever come your way; you can adapt to the situation as it changes. Harry has certainly shown an ability to face fear, and to adapt to the moment, but in those instances, he was in control of his emotion. In the times when they rules him, he usually does poorly. Not sure if that adds anything to the debate, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn PS: Dumbedore is very ZEN. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 00:22:01 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:22:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? WAS: Re: Dumbledore's pleading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141564 > > Carol responds: > > I'm equally confident that Harry *must* follow Snape's advice > > -stay away from Dark magic, close your mouth (nonverbal spells), > > and control your emotions. > > Yes, a particular emotion (love) is the key to defeating > > Voldemort, but he's not going to find that path by Crucioing > > people and seeking revenge. > > Alla: > > IF for the sake of argument I will agree that Snape WAS giving > advice, which I am not sure about in the first place, I will have to > disagree again at least about the last part. "Controlling his > emotions" is a question of degree, IMO and actually I don't remember > Snape saying that Harry should control his emotions, more like > shutting them down , if I remember the gist of what he was saying > during Occlumency lessons and I don't think that "shutting emotions > down" is the way to go for Harry. > > Be a bit more in charge, maybe? Being cold and emotionless, I > seriously doubt it. Valky: If there be no objections, may I sidetrack this discussion slightly? It occurred to me that having had success before comparing the Under the Trapdoor foreshadowings to their respective books, that to some degree it would be prudent to compare these last few chapters of HBP to the Potions challenge under the trapdoor. And hence when the context is overlaid on upon the other, after this um.. discussion? between Snape and Harry, there is Fire - Hagrids House and DD's burial - and right before the fires in the UTTD trials there is a discussion between Harry and Hermione. So could I bend your ears to compare the two exchanges with me? The first one is simple and straighforward enough - Hermione says, you are a great wizard Harry. Harry replies, not as good as you. Hermione then, Who.. me.. Books and cleverness, there are more important things, like friendship, bravery and Oh Harry Be Careful! The second exchange, between Snape and Harry, something like this - Cruc-, Cruc- No Unforgivables from you Potter you don't have the nerve or the ability - parrying curses.. Incarc- Fight Back! Coward! Who me, Your father never fought me without help what would you call him then? still parrying curses. Blocked until you can keep your mind closed and mouth shut. Then Snape saves him from being crucio'ed Harry uses Snapes curses, Snape gets mad - MY book MY Cleverness!, and Harry calls him Coward. DON'T CALL ME COWARD! So what are the similarities? Well one way to read it stands out for me pretty well like a green orange. PS/SS - I am not as good as You. HBP - Harry is not as good as Snape. PS/SS - Who ME. Books and Cleverness. Snape taking the credit for HIS book HIS Cleverness. PS/SS - There are more important things, Friendship, Bravery and Oh Harry be careful... Now heres the hard part. Theres a list of elements in the exchange between Snape and Harry that seem to fit the elements of this sentence but most need to be ripped out of context to do it. The ones that fit best IMO are: Friendship - No Unforgivables for you, Potter! Bravery - Don't call me Coward. and Harry be careful - Close your mind, Shut your Mouth. The problem is that Snape says this all in mixed order in comparison to what Hermione says. Other elements that fit but not as well in the context of the PS/SS scene IMO are: Friendship: Snape protecting Draco, Harry saying NOt Hagrid too! and Your father fought me two on one what would you call that? Bravery: Your father fought me two on one etc.., Harry feeling no Fear and Harry be careful: Snape protecting him from Crucio, and parrying the curses.. Now here's where I say, how much I agree with Alla. As I see it, the three main things that Snape says respective to Hermiones advice are - No Unforgivables, Don't call me Coward and Close your mind shut your mouth. When it comes down to it in PS/SS, the next trial with the Mirror, Hermione's advice to be careful is close to good for nothing. Harry finds the stone, and he does try to conceal it, he does try to be careful. He decides to lie and pretend he doesn't know where it is, and this is when Voldemort reveals himself. When Harry does finally protect the stone, it is his friendship and bravery valued above all things that gives him the strength to do the job right. He stands between Voldemort and his friends (Hogwarts) and he stays bravely fighting for the stone until he is all but dead from the effort. Being careful had nothing to do with his victory. As a foreshadowing, I think it says almost the opposite to what has been said a lot on these boards. Many of us are saying that Harry probably won't take Snapes advice to play smart and be careful. But I, on the contrary think, it is foreshadowed that he will. Many of us think he won't win without it, and I, on the contrary, think that it's foreshadowed that his trying to hide his thoughts and keep his mouth shut will be what leads him to the most danger. And it will be Friendship, Bravery and Love that makes it possible for him to win the battle. Okay, everyone - launch the rotten tomatoes. :D Valky From hp_fan55 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 23:42:52 2005 From: hp_fan55 at yahoo.com (hp_fan55) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:42:52 -0000 Subject: A Question of Soul-splitting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141565 Having read HBP a number of times, a question that arises in my mind is on LV's splitting of his soul. One would think that as the soul was split it would be divided by half. So after the first split, one half of the soul would be placed into a horcrux. Thus the remaining half soul would be split again resulting in two halves of the half soul in which one half would be placed in the next horcrux. Should LV successfully split his soul upon the sixth try (the seventh split remaining within himself)the the question becomes "Of how much value is each split and is it of the same quality as the first split?" I bring this up to also point out that the possibility of the horcruxes so far encountered may have a bearing on the strength of the retrival of each horcrux. I realize that those of you with great knowledge will say that the ring horcrux was not LV's first encounter with developing a horcrux because he openly wore the ring the night he asked Slughorn about the subject but could he have decided to use it after getting all the information he could about the subject? hp_fan 55 From rh64643 at appstate.edu Thu Oct 13 23:46:03 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:46:03 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141566 Geoff Bannister wrote: (snip) > Moving on to the subject of Dumbledore doing wandless magic, there does > appear to be at least one case of him doing this. It is not a major > example but it indicates that he could: >> (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.222 UK edition) truthbeauty 1 again: This is an interesting point. However,I was kind of under the impression that Hogwarts itself is kind of magic. This instance,I.M.O, could just be D.D kind of directing the walls in which way to go. That could be completely wrong, however, I still do not really believe that good solid magic can be achieved by wizard kind without their wands. I also find it interesting that House Elves can do fairly complicated magic without wands, and this may be the reason they are not allowed to own them. Perhaps House Elves are more powerful than wizards. truthbeauty1 From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 14 01:02:42 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:02:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Zen and the Art of Harry's emotions - his strength or weakness? References: Message-ID: <00c901c5d05a$fbbda130$e166400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141567 >> Alla: >> >> I loved your post, in fact I agree with a lot of it, except that >> again I am REALLY not sure that not letting his emotions replace his >> will is what Snape was trying to teach Harry. I am just not. ... >> >> Besides, you nailed it when you said that you are confident that >> Harry will learn what he has to, IMO. >> >> I am just not sure that Harry will learn it from Snape, that is all. > > bboyminn: > > First a brief apology, I have somewhat followed this thread but I > haven't read everything. That said... > > What is Snape trying to teach Harry? > > Figuratively speaking, of course, it is ZEN. Magpie: This is exactly the kind of concept that *I* think is really needed, and to me that's more what the art of Occlumency would be about. However, I also see Alla's point: Is this really what *Snape* is trying to teach Harry? Can Snape really understand or teach zen? Is Snape really zen himself? Snape refers to people who wear their emotions too openly as "weak" and that sounds more unhealthy. In my own experience of meditation "weak" is exactly the wrong word to use. Trying to force it is counter-productive. I can imagine that Snape mistakenly trying to teach something that would really be a bad thing--something more like the way Draco seems to have lived for years, where he tries to just destroy emotions he can't deal with. That's not zen, it's just repression. Yet that's exactly what seems to offer what hope there is for Draco in HBP, that he possibly considers these emotions as being a potential strength, or at least not so scary, if he accepts them and accepts that part of himself. Only he didn't learn that from Snape. Anything he learned that year seemed to come from struggling along with Dumbledore watching from a distance. Finally, when he makes it to the Tower, Dumbledore supervises while Draco works his way towards some understanding (which he may not completely reach). So I think I agree with Alla that this is possibly *not* what Snape is trying to teach Harry, but it may be what Harry needs to learn for himself anyway, correctly. -m From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Oct 14 01:30:34 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:30:34 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: <20051013164036.84798.qmail@web34914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141568 CH3ed: > Did you mean wordless or non-verbal rather than wandless? > Dumbledore was the greatest wizard who ever lived and he > was defenseless without his wand. I think you can probably > do minor accidental magic without a wand (like the young > pre-school wizards do when they 'make funny things happen > when they're upset,' but you probably need a wand to be able > to channel your magical ability into making bona fide spells. houyhnhnm quotes (from PS/SS): "There are all kinds of courage," said Dumbledore, smiling. "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. I therefore award ten points to Mr. Neville Longbottom." Someone standing outside the Great Hall might well have thought some sort of explosion had taken place .... "Which means," Dumbledore called over the storm of applause, for even Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff were celebrating the downfall of Slytherin, "we need a little change of decoration." He clapped his hands. In an instant, the green hangings became scarlet and silver became gold; the huge Slytherin serpent vanished and a towering Gryffindor lion took its place. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 01:37:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:37:02 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Hunting - Time, Skill, Knowledge, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141569 > bboyminn wrote: > > > On the Horcruxes in general, the whole process of tracking them > > > down seems too complex and time consuming using normal methods. > > quick_silver71: > > The Harry that I saw in Half-Blood Prince showed signs > > of being able to complete this task...the appearance of > > cunning, guile, his general combat skills, > > his use of hard hitting spells, his willingness to actually notice > > the world around him, etc. > bboyminn: > > Time is the critical aspect here. it all has to happen in one > year along with all the other 'stuff' that we know must happen in > the next book (Godrics Hollow, Bill's Wedding, other...). > How much time to realize it, and how > must time to track it down, how much time to retrieve it, how much > time to destroy it? Then that is only one of many, how much time to > determine, decide, find, overcome, capture, and destroy the > Founder's Horcrux? A lot I think. > > > quick_silver71: > > The "Founder Object" is probably the most difficult to find > > and the one where I believe Snape will help with. > > bboyminn: > > While the known Horcruxes seem a near impossible task, the > 'Founder's Horcrux' really is an impossible task. We don't know if > it's Ravenclaw or Gryffindor, we don't know what it is, we don't > know where it is, > > Somehow some 'shortcuts' have to enter the picture. Somehow some new > mysterious source of knowledge has to come into the picture; Valky now: I agree with you both, each in different ways. First I agree with Steve on the notion that Shortcuts will be absolutely necessary if Harry is to complete this task in the space of a single year. But I also agree with Quicksilver in saying that there is only two actually needing to be found and retrieved the rest are located or destroyed, which narrows the field considerably much. Working from that platform, I'd like to rest aside the Locket for now and focus on the two unknowns, as I think that it will be within the framework of retrieving and destroying these two that a shortcut needs to appear. The first is the Hufflepuff cup, it is identified, but not located. Now it seems pretty strange, to me, really that a Horcrux *Dumbledore clearly identified* exists but that Dumbledore gives no open clues to it's whereabouts while he teaches Harry. The second is the Founders object that is unidentified, Dumbledore gives Harry a strong hint toward suspecting it is Ravenclaw's when he shows Harry that the Sword "the only known relic of GG" is safe and in his care. What really bugs me here is Dumbledore's clues. When it comes to loction, Dumbledore seems to have used up all the Pensieve clues on the Locket Horcrux. Unfair! Right? I mean, here's Dumbledore the greatest wizard ever with gigantic brainpower at his disposal, giving Harry a handful of clues and then using them up in *his* hunt to find the cave instead of finding the Hufflepuff cup or the other object using his immense resources outside the lessons with Harry. But DD is not an unfair character, so I figure there can be one of two things happening here. 1. Dumbledore is demonstrating to Harry how to extrapolate another clue out of the Memories to locate a Horcrux. And whatever that clue is, I might have missed it. 2. Dumbledore knows Harry already has the same number of clues as to the locations of the other Horcruxes, and he is using the Memories as a demonstration of how to extrapolate from what *Harry already knows*. or 3. both. I like the idea that he's done both. DD is definitely a two (or several) birds with one stone kind of guy, IMO. So here's how I construe that into the clues I wrote above: The Unknown Object- There is just *not* enough information given about this one. So I am almost 100% sure that this is the one where the clue to its location needs to be pulled out of the memories. Incedentally, that leads directly to London, since the only history of Voldemort that DD didn't use up in finding the locket and ring was the fact that he worked at Borgin and Burkes. The Hufflepuff Cup - This one OTOH really irks me. Why didn't Dumbledore find this one for Harry. He knew exactly what it was! It makes no sense. That is why I think that this is the one that needs a slightly *huge* shortcut. And that shortcut needs, absolutely, to have been something preventing Dumbledore from retrieving it. I have two scenarios there. One may be that it is in the possession of a Death Eater as Quicksilver suggested. But I am not so fond of that one, since it seems more logical for the DE's to turn up in London while the scene has been set for it. The other explanation which I like better is that this Horcrux has already *been found*, like the Locket. Someone has already had a fair swipe at destroying it too, so all Harry has to do is turn up and finish the job. Big enough shortcut for you Steve? As for the Locket. Well a BIG shortcut on the Hufflepuff Chalice and the unknown object being found nice an close to home in London should scale the timeframe down enough to fit in a trip to Number 12 and Azkaban, yes? Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 01:43:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:43:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141570 Valky: > Many of us are saying that Harry probably won't take Snapes advice to > play smart and be careful. But I, on the contrary think, it is > foreshadowed that he will. > > Many of us think he won't win without it, and I, on the contrary, > think that it's foreshadowed that his trying to hide his thoughts and > keep his mouth shut will be what leads him to the most danger. And it > will be Friendship, Bravery and Love that makes it possible for him to > win the battle. > > Okay, everyone - launch the rotten tomatoes. :D > > Valky > Alla: Oh, that was brilliant, Valky. I mentioned Hermione's advice upthread in passing, but it was such cool comparison with Snape's advice. It is a great idea that Harry may indeed think that he needs to shut his mouth and close his thoughts, but that is what will lead him into danger. I am not sure I agree with it, I simply think that Harry won't have time to learn how to close his mind in book 7 and that if needed book 6 was a perfect opportunity for it, but as long as it produces no positive results and Harry goes back to his true nature, I love it too. Your post made me even more convinced that the only USEFUL lesson that Harry will take from Snape is NOT to become him. Just out of curiousity, do you think Harry will try to figure out how to close his mind without Occlumency? It just seems to me that both JKR and Dumbledore dismissed it pretty much forever. JMO, of course. > Jen: I'm not sure JKR is saying feelings matter more than anything > else in Potterverse. She mentioned being a little reserved herself, > and her author alter-ego Dumbledore is remarkably reserved as well > (with good reason, I think, but still presented as emotionally > contained). Alla: I am, quite sure that is. :-) Again, not saying that intellect is nothing in Potterverse, but as Valky said, friendship loyalty and bravery is what matters most, IMO. Yes, Dumbledore is reserved, that is true, but don't you think that this leads him to one of his mistakes,as he himself is saying: "Youth cannot know how age thinks or feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young... and I seem to have forgotten lately" - OOP, p.826, paperback. I read this admission as Dumbledore forgetting how young people feel and this is what lead him to make mistakes in his dealings with Harry and Sirius. Dumbledore is 150 years old, so of course he cannot be as open with his emotions as Harry is, because he had been through a lot, saw a lot, etc, but I think at the end of OOP Dumbledore is expressing regret among other things that he was out of touch with how his people feel. Oh, and at the same time he thinks that his mistake was caring about Harry too much, but I speculate that he is wrong here, because supposedly that fact ( Dumbledore caring about Harry too much - I have problems accepting it wholeleartedly in the light of "I knew you would suffer" speech, but I think that is what JKR trying to convey to us - that DD does love Harry) and Harry realising it lead to Harry proclaiming himself "Dumbledore man" and picking up the torch. Jen: > Dumbledore approved of Harry moving on from Sirius' death and not > continuing to agonzie over it, he praised him instead for being like > his parents and Sirius. Alla: Well, I suspect that is JKR wanting to do the transition from OOP to HBP ASAP. Jen: Then when Harry finds out about Snape-as- > Eavesdropper and attempted to master his strong emtotions so he > could go on the cave expedition, Dumbledore didn't try to intervene > and tell him to let it all hang out. ;) Dumbledore doesn't *tell* > Harry to control his feelings, but rewards him when he's able to do > so. A different approach from Snape, lol. Alla: I am SO not sure that JKR approves Dumbledore handling of the situation here. I again think that those were more for plot related reasons, because I saw absolutely no sense in Dumbledore shutting Harry out, when he just learned that Snape had a hand in letting his parents be dead, IMO. > Jen: And Harry wasn't out of control with his emotions when he felt > love and painful loss for Sirius; the heartfelt feeling which > expelled Voldemort was a very specific, momentary feeling, not an on- > going, rampant feeling like the hatred Harry feels for Snape. Alla: I think we are arguing semantics here. I am not saying that emotions should be out of control, I am just saying that shutting them down - BOTH positive and negative could bring more danger than usefulness. I think you argued once that in Potterverse the innerself of the person is often personified by very concrete things - boggart, patronus. I think Harry controling his emotions, sort of - will shape into channeling them ( and I mean his hatred first and foremost, because I don't think that he needs to do anything with that Love of his) into something more positive and concrete than Unforgivables. Maybe something that will personify Love. You know, doing magic of love with negative emotions or something like that. Just speculating here of course. Jen: > Dumbledore told Harry his heart saved him from Voldemort's > possession, yet he offered Harry a slightly different explanation > for why Occlumency wasn't necessary in HBP (besides Harry not being > skilled at it). He told Harry: "Lord Voldemort has finally realized > the dangerous access to his thoughts and feelings you have been > enjoying." (chap. 4). That's a very rational explanation, not an > emotional one. Alla: Jen, I don't think that this is the explanation for why Harry does not need to study Occlumency. This is an explanation of why Harry's scar is not hurting, that is it. I mean, it is sort of the same, but IMO not really, because nowhere in that quote Dumbledore is saying that "this is why you don't have to study Occlumency" "So tell me, Harry," said Dumbledore. "Your scar... has it been hurting at all?" It is too long to type ,so I will just summarise . Harry says no and he thought that this would be burning all the time , but Dumbledore says that this is because Voldemort is now employing Occlumency against Harry - HBP, p.59 for exact quote. I think that "your heart saved you" is a very significant statement, which will somehow play a big role at the end. And I am not sure as to whether Dumbledore gives much rational explanation as to why Occlumency lessons are not needed,w hen he directly talks to Harry about these lessons. "If I am having lessons with you, I won't have to Occlumency lessons with Snape, will I?" "Professor Snape, Harry - and no, you will not." "Good," said Harry in relief, " because they were a ----" He stopped, careful not to say what he really thought. " I think the word "fiasco" would be a good one here," said Dumbledore nodding. - HBP, p.79. I don't know, I think for Dumbledore that was a big display of emotion. :) JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 02:28:53 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:28:53 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141571 > >>Nora: > But 'Voldemort as Slytherin's Heir' isn't particularly twisty, I'd > say; it's something at least set up for us with the association of > Slytherin and DEs. Betsy Hp: Oh sure, easy to say that *now*. Are you telling me you totally predicted that somehow *Voldemort* was back at Hogwarts and summoning the beast of the Chamber? And that you knew young Tom Riddle was in fact, young Voldemort? I didn't. And while it made perfect sense that Voldemort was Slytherin's heir, the fact that it made sense after the reveal only points to the fact that it was a *good* twist. (A twist that leaves the audience scratching their heads is a bad twist. It *should* make sense once it's revealed.) > >>Nora: > *Ginny* being the person doing the things is the twist at the end > of CoS... Betsy Hp: It's *part* of the twist. The diary, Tom Riddle, and Voldemort all make up the final twist. > >>NoraL > ...(just like the revelation of Crouch!Moody is the twist), but > Voldemort returning? Eh, it's a major plot development, but it's > not the 'thing we thought was one thing and turned out to be > another', you know? Betsy Hp: It was a plot development, yes. But it was told, as is usual with JKR, in a twisty sort of way. Fake!Moody's true loyalty and agenda were all directed towards Voldmort and his return. That was an unexpected turn to the tale. (Snape being sent to spy was another twist, I think.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > Ooh, I think you're *really* mistaken here. The resolution of > > Snape's story arc will send screams of either joy or pain > > throughout fandom. > >>Nora: > Well, of course. :) I've been waiting for that Schadenfreude for > some time. As at least some people are going to be screaming in > rage no matter what happens, I'm counting on some first-rate > entertainment. Betsy Hp: Yes, but will it beat the great Shipping Meltdown of '05? > >>Nora: > I think it's possible to resolve it without anything particularly > twisty--which in this case, I'd classify as something that neither > camp (or none out of three or so) has predicted. You know that it > could be as direct as "this is actually what Snape did", without > that kind of shock element. > Betsy Hp: Well *yes*, but why on earth would JKR do that? It goes completely against her story-telling style so far, and it would be boring. After all the set up JKR has gone through with Snape, why have no pay off in the end? It seems rather pointless to me. > >>Betsy Hp: > > So? That many suggested twisty theories have been shown to be > > wrong doesn't mean there's not going to be any twist > > whatsoever. > >>Nora: > Dangerous extrapolation to assume, although possible. What I > thought I'd been suggesting is that the fandom is overestimating > and overvaluing the actual twist. > Betsy Hp: Oh, sure. Fandom takes things too far, at times, in their quest for a extra-special, super-duper, twist. We've got time on our hands so it happens. But to go to the other extreme and suggest there will be no twist whatsoever is even more dangerous, IMO, when it comes to prediction games. JKR writes with twists. Every book has one, and to think that her smallest twist will come at the end of the tale is to completely discount her style, IMO. > >>Nora: > > Nothing says she has to twist at the end as well--it could be on a > model where we move out of obscurity and into clarity and > directness. Betsy Hp: It's her books, she can do what she wants, of course. But, as you pointed out, all of the books have had a twist so I think it would be jarring if the last book didn't have one. I'm not sure how that rules out "clarity and directness". The end of CoS was pretty clear and direct and included a twist. So did PoA. "Sirius isn't the guilty party; it was Scabbers all along!!" . > > Betsy Hp: > > Yup! The "not evil" bit is exactly it. I'd been arguing > > that point for a while and it was very nice to have it cleared > > up once and for all. Slytherins are just as human as the rest > > of the Hogwarts' student body. > >>Nora: > Just considerably less well-behaved and contributing to the > welfare of the school than others... > Betsy Hp: If, um, you totally ignore the Weasley twins or Cho's friend.... As I said, human. (Have you read Magpie's post on Slytherin? She points out that by rejecting Slytherin, Hogwarts has, in a sense, not allowed Slytherins to contribute to the school. Something that obviously needs to change. It's here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141348 ) > >>Nora: > (not to mention pesky lurking ideas like the Good). > Betsy Hp: Yes, trying to protect your mother's life is *so* not good. Though, actually, I think JKR has gone out of her way to *not* go all CS Lewis on us. Not many characters are really, really, good. Even Harry likes to throw an Unforgivable or two. > >>Nora; > If Slughorn is a representative Slytherin, I suppose it's an > improvement over Snape, Lucius Malfoy, and Voldemort. > But then I can also specialize in damning with faint praise. :) Betsy Hp: Heh. Yes, I'd say Slughorn is a better man than Voldemort. And the most important thing? Harry realizes it. I'm betting we'll get some better examples in book 7. (Is that Draco waiting in the wings? ) Betsy Hp From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 14 02:44:19 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 02:44:19 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141572 Betsy hp: > The fact that Harry was able to recognize Slughorn's weaknesses > (and I think Harry *does* realize that he's benefitting from his > fame and possible his mother) but still not classify him as evil > is the first step in Harry realizing the worth in Slytherin. Jen: Hang on, I'm having another one of those Harry-is-acting-like-a- Slytherin moments :). Is that what you meant here, about Harry benefitting from his fame and his connections? I don't mean to step on your theory, it just suddenly seems so obvious why Harry could have been in Slytherin house. Look at him--"those cunning folks use any means to achieve their ends"--like pulling a bezoar out of the hat to much adulation and praise? Like using Felix to get an old wizard drunk, then employing emotional manipulation to talk him out of his memory? Like using a potion book of unknown origin so he can meet Slughorn's expectations for his superior potions ability? Sheesh! I know everyone doesn't read HBP this way, but I suddenly feel like JKR is banging us over the head with it. Betsy: > What I'm hoping for is that rather than a single "good Slytherin" > we'll finally see the good *in* Slytherin, and Hogwarts will be > healed of the rift made by the founders. Jen: Only when Harry sees the Slytherin in himself . I'm not sure any of these outside folks can turn him as much as he can turn himself. Maybe Lily's memories will help him, she apparently learned to see the good in others. If Slughorn was telling the story accurately, she would have made a good Slytherin herself and didn't think that was a horrible thought. > SSSusan: > > So that leaves me pondering a couple of questions: > 1) Who DID brew the potion? Was it Voldy? Voldy alone? Voldy > with someone's help? If with someone's help, then WHOSE? > 2) What WILL Slughorn's role be in the remainder of the saga? > Anybody want to make some predictions on this?? > Betsy Hp: > Of course, I could be wildly wrong and Slughorn will actually > provide some crucial information (he was, after all, Snape's head > of house). And it could turn out that it's *very* neccessary for > Harry to find out what potion was in the cave and therefore seek > out its brewer. However, JKR rarely travels back over familiar > ground, IIRC, so I suspect she's going to move on. Jen: I hope not! Not so much about Slughorn, your thoughts on why he was included for thematic reasons rings true. However, I can't let go of learning what happened to Dumbledore while drinking the potion, and suspect Slughorn is the only one who could tell Harry that information (whether Sluggy unwittingly helped make the potion or not). If Dumbledore didn't even know the effects of the potion, then it must be pretty rare. Also, that moment was one of only two in HBP I can think of to answer the following question, which JKR wouldn't: ES: "What would Dumbledore's boggart be?" JKR: "I can't answer that either, but for theories you should read six again." Right after HBP my vote was for the potion experience as the boggart moment, that Dumbledore envisioned his greatest fear which was something akin to what happened later that night--his students in danger from a mistake he made, people being hurt or tortured to the point he was willing to die to save them. That one still seems like a good bet. The only other boggart moment I can think of was on the tower. Perhaps if Dumbledore's boggart was Harry being killed before Voldemort, then his plea on the tower was for Snape to please keep his word that in Dumbledore's absence, Snape would watch over Harry and help him in the final stages of his quest. No wonder the look of hatred etched across his face. Jen From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 13 22:19:21 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:19:21 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141573 Carol: > Evidently you're not, as I pointed out that he wasn't charged with > being a Death Eater, only with aiding one, and you snipped that > point. Goddlefrood says: Time will obviously tell, I find it interesting that Bagman may have been deliberately downplayed by JKR. Alternatives for the BBDE are quite thin. Sturgis Podmore is never mentioned as being large which originally led me to think of who the BBDE could be. It started from that premise. The other matters regarding Bagman's loyalty are on far shakier ground. Putting all the pieces of description of Bagman together leads to the not unreasonable conclusion that he is a prime suspect to be the BBDE. Carol: > What evidence do you have that has not already been answered in > GoF itself with the explanation that he's in debt to the goblins? > I'm not persuaded that we should reject that explanation. Goddlefrood: As I say it's more the description of Bagman that we have that leads me to my conclusion. Carol: > The chains bind the people we know are guilty of being Death > Eaters: Karkaroff, the Lestranges (Bellatrix, Rodolphus, and > Rabastan), and the fear-filled boy, Barty Crouch Jr. They don't > bind Bagman; they only rattle ominously, suggesting that his > crime, if any, is minor. And in Harry's case, they don't even > rattle. So, yes, I think the chair can magically sense guilt, and > I see no evidence that Bagman is skilled at anything other than > Quidditch and "commentating." Goddlefrood replies: I can only speculate on this and say that the chair may act in the manner you describe. Or perhaps it is itself a loyal Quidditch fan? Or even perhaps it can be fooled like other dark detectors, if it is indeed one. Carol: > Do you have any canon evidence of his intelligence or power? I > don't recall his casting any spell other than Sonorus. He could be > a one-spell wonder like Lockhart. Goddlefrood: If I am correct about him being the BBDE then as that he shows considerable power. Goddlefrood earlier: > > That Bagman was a Beater is suggestive of his size. Carol: > I'm not disputing that Bagman is a large man, or that he's blond. > Obviously, he's both. I just don't think that's sufficient evidence > for concluding that he's the same person as the Big Blond Death > Eater. I have no doubt that there are many large blond wizards in > the UK. Goddlefrood: Any we have met, other than Bagman? Carol: > It's like saying: Carol is skinny and wears thick glasses that > magnify her eyes (true statement). She must be the same person as > Professor Trelawney. (Shh! Don't reveal my secret!) Seriously, the > BBDE could as easily be Sturgis Podmore, who is also blond and > should be out of prison by now, but we haven't heard a word about > him. Goddlefrood: Sturgis is, as I recall from The Advanced Guard in OotP described as quite small. Goddlefrood earlier: > > If it accepted as a detective novel, and it has many of those > > traits, then you have a valid point. It is not entirely a > > detective novel, however, it is in fact part of an ongoing saga Carol: > I'll grant you that detective story is one of several genres that > JKR employs, others being the heroic epic and the bildungsroman. > Certinly some characters, for example Wormtail and Snape, are part > of the continuing story, and it's possible that Bagman is as well. But Ludo Bagman, IIRC, first appears in GoF and has > disappeared from the story. Goddelfrood: As you say, time will tell. Goddlefrood earlier: > > Who says he was not in the graveyard? This point is far from > > proven. Carol again: > As you note yourself, we've found out the names of about half a > dozen of these people. But Bagman's name has not come up. Granted, > there's no proof that he wasn't in the graveyard, but there's no > evidence whatever that he was. Goddlefrood: Oh, the continuing mystery. Personally I don't think we will ever fully know who was in the graveyard. Carol: > Snape knows exactly at what point Voldemort summons the DEs to the > graveyard. So does Karkaroff, who runs away at exactly that point. Goddlefrood: Do they indeed? Snape shows his arm to Fudge later, but the point at which the DEs are summoned is not, to my recollection, stated. Carol said further: > Surely Snape or Crouch Jr. under Veritaserum would have remarked > about Bagman's disappearance if it had occurred at exactly that > time. But Bagman thought that he had won his bet (that Harry would > win the tournament). It's only after he meets with the goblins, > who tell him that the TWT ended in a draw and he's lost the bet > that he disappears. Goddlefrood: You are right on this point, but as I recall Bagman is stated to have disappeared immediately after the third task. It comes down to whether the interpretation you put on this is mine, that is that the third task ended when Harry and Cedric disappeared, at which point the goblins would have decided the bet, or when Harry reappeared with Cedric's body. In canon there is no absolutely clear indication of which. Carol: > And the DEs don't take half an hour to arrive after they're > summoned, which occurs *after* Wormtail has restored Voldemort to > his adult-sized body. (GoF Am. ed. 646). But Bagman would > have had to rush from the stadium with all eyes on him (like the > coward Karkaroff, who fears the revenge of the DEs so much that he > doesn't care who sees him), run and get a cloak and mask (did he > keep one at Hogwarts, just in case? I doubt it), run to Hogsmeade > (you can't Apparate from Hogwarts or its grounds), and show up > late (as no one does). Goddlefrood: I have no doubt that if Bagman did disappear it was to hide from the goblins. The half-hour I referred to was the time between Harry and Cedric touching the Portkey and the appearance of the Death Eaters. That would work. Carol: > Not all bad? He unquestionably sets fire to Hagrid's house (602) > and he apparently Crucios Harry (603). Goddlefrood: It is either Amycus or Alecto who Crucios Harry. Carol: > So we'll probably hear from Bill regarding Bagman, too. (One > more loose end to wrap up, like the death of Karkaroff mentioned in > passing in HBP.) Goddlefrood: I trust this would be the case as I, as I am sure you are, am curious about Bagman. Goddlefrood earlier: > > Toodle pip Carol: > Ah, you must be British! We Americans don't have any equivalent > (unborrowed) expressions that I can think of, sad, colorless lot > that we are. Goddlefrood: Indeed by origin I am British, but also partly Russian. Currently resident in Fiji for the last 8 years with endless time on my hands to read luckily. Perhaps as the British have done in adopting certain Americanisms you Americans could adopt certain expressions from the Brits. Chin Chin From rh64643 at appstate.edu Fri Oct 14 00:15:46 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:15:46 -0000 Subject: Tonks is Tonks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141574 Lately there have been several threads arguing that in book 6, Tonks is actually Narcissa Malfoy. I have to say, I find this idea to be completely far fetched (which means it is probably right haha). I do not see Tonks' strange behavior in H.B.P as needing any other excuse besides being young and in love with someone who won't return that love. Some have pointed out that we do not see Tonks being clumsy in this book. Well,we don't see her being very busy either. In O.O.P, she is a state of motion. She is "helping" Mrs. Weasley cook, helping Harry pack. She is constanly being active, so her clumsiness is bound to show up more. In H.B.P., she is sitting at the Weasleys' table, she is moping around the castle. She is much more passive, and also normally in large open spaces where it would be hard to be clumsy, I.M.O. The patronus situation is also used as proof for some that Tonks == Mrs. Malfoy. I see this situation as proof that this idea is wrong. First of all, Tonks finds Harry and helps him into the castle. Why exactly would Narcissa help the boy who basically landed her husband in prison and has been the bane of her son's existence for 5 years? Then there is Snape's very cold welcome. Snape sees the Patronus and recognizes it for what it is, a werewolf. We have never seen Snape be particularily nasty to Order Members except Sirius and Lupin. Why does he turn on Tonks now? Because he recognizes instanly what Harry takes all year to understand, Tonks is in love with Lupin. Snape hates Lupin, thus Snape now hates Tonks. Also, I don't believe that someone could fake their Patronus. If Narcissa has one, I don't think it would be a werewolf. I can't see how that would be comforting to anyone who wasn't in love with one. Tonks' appearance in Hogwarts isn't stange to me either. We know that she is on patrol in and around the Castle, so why couldn't she be there quickly if she thought the man she loved was in great danger? Well these are some of the reasons that I don't support this theory. I know there are people who disagree with me on several or all of these points, but that is what is so fun about these groups. I would love to know if anyone has any canon proof to either support or argue the points mentioned above. truthbeauty1 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 14 04:01:13 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:01:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141575 > Alla: > I am, quite sure that is. :-) Again, not saying that intellect is > nothing in Potterverse, but as Valky said, friendship loyalty and > bravery is what matters most, IMO. > > Yes, Dumbledore is reserved, that is true, but don't you think > that this leads him to one of his mistakes,as he himself is saying: > I read this admission as Dumbledore forgetting how young people > feel and this is what lead him to make mistakes in his dealings > with Harry and Sirius. Jen: Oh Alla, I would love to feel your certainty about *something* in Potterverse. My only rock-solid prediction for Book 7 is Voldemort will finally, and for all time, be vanquished ;). Cause see, you're swaying me here. Maybe in the case above and the case where Dumbledore is dismissive with Harry about Snape-as- eavesdropper, maybe both were examples of him forgetting the fiery, idealistic passion of youth, and how important things are in the moment. Hell, sometimes I forget and I'm only 38. Alla: > Oh, and at the same time he thinks that his mistake was caring > about Harry too much, but I speculate that he is wrong here, > because supposedly that fact ( Dumbledore caring about Harry too > much - I have problems accepting it wholeleartedly in the light > of "I knew you would suffer" speech, but I think that is what JKR > trying to convey to us - that DD does love Harry) and Harry > realising it lead to Harry proclaiming himself "Dumbledore man" > and picking up the torch. Jen: I know you don't think much about that speech in OOTP, but I've always loved it and never believed Dumbledore made a mistake. Since we know Harry's power saves him from temptation by Voldemort (among other things), I'd say Dumbledore's power was the same. A lesser man would have given into temptation to mold Harry into a super-wizard, the only kind of person you might think could defeat Voldemort after hearing the prophecy, and that plan would have failed miserably. > Alla: > I am SO not sure that JKR approves Dumbledore handling of the > situation here. I again think that those were more for plot > related reasons, because I saw absolutely no sense in Dumbledore > shutting Harry out, when he just learned that Snape had a hand in > letting his parents be dead, IMO. Jen: Aha! Interesting. See, *I* don't approve of how Dumbledore handled that. I don't care about confidentiality or any of it, Harry deserved more of an explanation. But I'm not sure how JKR saw it. HBP was about Dumbledore making a few mistakes, so this could be one of them, or she could support him by saying the cave was much more important at that moment, and Dumbledore expected to get back to Harry on the Snape thingy. Even though I don't like the idea Dumbledore was dying from the ring curse, this would be a reason I could see supporting his anxiety to get to the cave. Otherwise, hmmm...I could live with it but have difficulty understanding it. > Alla: > I think we are arguing semantics here. I am not saying that > emotions should be out of control, I am just saying that shutting > them down -BOTH positive and negative could bring more danger > than usefulness. Jen: I misunderstood here, thought you meant Harry shouldn't try to control his feelings somewhat. We both agree he needs to get a handle on his hatred, that it could interfere with what he needs to focus on. But NOT through Occlumency. I hope change will come for him through emotional healing, brought about by the visit to Godric's or memories of Lily. Alla: > I think Harry controling his emotions, sort of - will > shape into channeling them ( and I mean his hatred first and > foremost, because I don't think that he needs to do anything with > that Love of his) into something more positive and concrete than > Unforgivables. Maybe something that will personify Love. You know, > doing magic of love with negative emotions or something like that. > Just speculating here of course. Jen: That's a nice thought! I never considered that. Sort of an anti- Unforgiveable, like an anti-dementor?!? Yes, very possible. Well, in fact I think we've seen it! The gong from Dumbledore directed toward Voldemort at the MOM. That man never gives up trying to see the good in people and perhaps he thought a dose of love might work wonders ;). Seriously, I truly believe Dumbledore **Never Hated Voldemort**. Think how big that was! Talk about never giving into temptation. Dumbledore spent most of his life trying to defeat LV yet never hated him for all he'd done to so many people Dumbledore loved. That last meeting in Dumbledore's office, the last meeting before Voldemort effectively extinguished Riddle, all Dumbledore felt was sorrow that he couldn't help Riddle see the power of love magic. That's some pretty awesome Love. > Alla: > Jen, I don't think that this is the explanation for why Harry > does not need to study Occlumency. This is an explanation of why > Harry's scar is not hurting, that is it. I mean, it is sort of the > same, but IMO not really, because nowhere in that quote Dumbledore > is saying that "this is why you don't have to study Occlumency" > I think that "your heart saved you" is a very significant > statement, which will somehow play a big role at the end. Jen: Actually, true confession time. One of the few things I predicted right for HBP was Harry wouldn't need Occlumency lessons because his heart saved him :). That the reason Dumbledore talked openly with Harry in the study afterward was because he had no fear Voldemort would try to invade Harry anymore, even using the mind link, given the power residing in Harry (well that part wasn't exactly right). Then HBP confused me! Was it emotion that saved Harry or his *soul*? Dumbledore called it his heart in OOTP, but then HBP was all about souls--was this a plot like the thestrals and JKR didn't want to start something new about souls that she couldn't explain properly in OOTP? And then the 'untarnished soul' bit and Harry's ability to resist temptation by Voldemort. Some days I think I have a handle on these things and other days not. Jen From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 04:11:37 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:11:37 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141576 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Oh sure, easy to say that *now*. Are you telling me you > totally predicted that somehow *Voldemort* was back at Hogwarts and > summoning the beast of the Chamber? It's been far too long for me to accurately recall how I read CoS back in the day, but I don't remember being genuinely surprised, no. > Betsy Hp: > It's *part* of the twist. The diary, Tom Riddle, and Voldemort all > make up the final twist. But Ginny is the really twisty, really BANG-y part of the thing. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, but will it beat the great Shipping Meltdown of '05? Without a doubt. > Betsy Hp: > Well *yes*, but why on earth would JKR do that? It goes completely > against her story-telling style so far, and it would be boring. > After all the set up JKR has gone through with Snape, why have no > pay off in the end? It seems rather pointless to me. There are, natch, many different categories of payoff. You have to leave open the possibility that she's been laughing at how we've contorted ourselves to explain Snapeykins, while the reality is something far more direct. The reality is certainly something that she knows, and likes to drop little hints to us about how she knows it and we don't. In fact, I'd argue that directness is precisely what we've conditioned ourselves *not* to expect, to such a degree that the direct would be maximally BANG-y. I do expect things like revelations about what side he's been on (either the whole time or flipping), why he did things, blah blah blah. But I also expect these things to come out as fairly solid and settled. Snape's interest as a character is something I'm going to predict is actually somewhat more shortlived than the more fully realized creatures on the page. So much of his fan interest is predicated upon the multiple possibilities and the unknowable issues and motivations. You kill off most of those, as I suspect JKR is going to take a fiendish amount of glee in doing, and you leave people high and dry to go sulk over their own nuked backstories and ideas. > Betsy Hp: > It's her books, she can do what she wants, of course. But, as you > pointed out, all of the books have had a twist so I think it would > be jarring if the last book didn't have one. I think I do repeat myself when I say that to me, the last two books have not had the same kind of mystery structure (although there are elements in common) as the first four. We've already gotten hints that book 7 is going to be even more radical in breaking open the format, with a potential shift into fantasy quest mode. Is now the time that I should say I think reading the books as mysteries is also typically overemphasized? :) > (Have you read Magpie's post on Slytherin? She points out that by > rejecting Slytherin, Hogwarts has, in a sense, not allowed > Slytherins to contribute to the school. Something that obviously > needs to change. It's here: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141348 ) I don't particularly buy the construction of agency with Hogwarts ganging up on/rejecting Slytherin. They're not the oppressed, they're The Man, in infancy. So I read it more as self-isolation than that. YMMV. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, trying to protect your mother's life is *so* not good. I said The Good, not good. :) Setting your mother's life above the welfare of others, and the life of one figure who is most powerfully involved in the fight to protect many more people from a band of genocidal maniacs...eh, we're getting into the territory of ethicists, so let's not go there onlist. > Betsy Hp: > Heh. Yes, I'd say Slughorn is a better man than Voldemort. And > the most important thing? Harry realizes it. I'm betting we'll > get some better examples in book 7. (Is that Draco waiting in the > wings? ) Probably only if Draco is genuinely sorry for the wrongs that he's done, as opposed to mainly being upset that things didn't work out for him like he would have wanted them to. That would be a quantum leap in his character, to get over his self-centeredness (and yes, that does include his elevation of his blood kin as more deserving of consideration than many others), so we can't rule it out. -Nora wouldn't mind, now that we mention Schadenfreude, Draco kicking it just to further frustrate hordes of shippers... From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 04:17:38 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:17:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141577 > Valky: > > > > > Many of us are saying that Harry probably won't take Snapes advice > > to play smart and be careful. But I, on the contrary think, it is > > foreshadowed that he will. > Alla: > > Just out of curiousity, do you think Harry will try to figure out > how to close his mind without Occlumency? It just seems to me that > both JKR and Dumbledore dismissed it pretty much forever. JMO, of > course. > Valky: Well going strictly on the forehsdowing under the trapdoor its eems to e that Harry will eventually try to use it. In PS/SS Harry deliberately thinks to himself "I must lie.. I'll tell him I see myself with the House Cup." IMHO this is *so obviously* a foreshadowing that Harry will try Occlumency on Voldemort at the last minute. Now, I agree that it's written off. He really shouldn't bother, both JKR and Dumbledore have made it fairly clear Occlumency does Harry sweet all good, since he just doesn't hide. It's not him, really, at the deep innermost level, to hide. He's a fighting spirit, open and free, not afraid or ashamed, repressed or any of those things that makes Occlumency easier to use. So in that sense, I don't see him bothering to master it first or even think of it at all before the moment when he decides - "it would be smart here to use Occlumency."- but he won't suceed. But there is another matter of Non Verbal spells, which I think OTOH *is* forshadowed as something Harry can use effectively. When he gets the Stone out of the mirror, he is saying nothing, and yet he makes it happen effortlessly. So on the matter of the Non-verbal magic, I think Harry *is* going to apply himself to it, and I am fairly certain he won't find it all that hard, I think it will come to him a bit like apparating did. In the first instance he's not real keen, he's really good at flying and he prefers that, so he doesn't give apparating much concern since it makes him uncomfortable anyway. He feels the same about defensive magic, he's excellent at defense and his shield charm is the among the fastest and most efficient possible, he's used it on Death Eaters with success before and twice used it on Snape with astounding effects, while learning DADA from Snape makes him uncomfortable, it's just plain unpleasant, like apparating, so he doesn't try to learn the Non-verbal shield charm at all. But then later in HBP Harry not only apparates brilliantly, he takes a side-along passenger as well, without a hitch. Because he concentrates and tries, and totally ignores the uncomfortable side effects. So I see the same thing happening with Non-Verbal spells. Soon enough we'll see Harry use a Non-verbal defense charm, possibly on Voldemort, that is not only good, but Bloody Brilliant! and beyond the level he is expected to be working at. > > Jen: > > I'm not sure JKR is saying feelings matter more than anything > > else in Potterverse. She mentioned being a little reserved > > herself, and her author alter-ego Dumbledore is remarkably > > reserved as well (with good reason, I think, but still presented > > as emotionally contained). Valky: You're right Jen, but I can't help thinking that JKR has also tried to make the point, very strongly, that Dumbledore's greatness and calmness of emotions is not *what is needed* or else Dumbledore will have done the job himself. Sure, I agree, JKR isn't saying exactly that feelings are the utmost of importance in the Potterverse, or in the battle, but I think she is saying that Harrys little tornado of feelings are not such a great handicap to him. As long as he has the strongest three on his side, the Friendship, Bravery and Love, no reserved behaviour will compare. In OOtP Snape takes a bite out of Harry on this point. When Harry says Voldemorts name, Snape gets shirty Harry then argues - Well, Dumbledore says it - and Snape then goes on to say - Okay, for someone strong and great as Dumbledore, but us weaker wizards, well especially someone as pitiful as you Potter, we have to keep ourselves otherwise cautioned. But isn't it Dumbledore, himself, that totally dismisses all of these notions by saying that Harry's power is greater than his, and by telling Harry that Occlumency was a fiasco? Otherwise saying that if emotional containment and wizarding skill were really the exclusive key to winning, then you, Harry, are not the man for the job, so since you *are* that man, must be something else that is required, hey? like being brave enough to say Voldemort. . Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 05:26:15 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:26:15 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141578 > Carol: > > The chains bind the people we know are guilty of being Death > > Eaters: Karkaroff, the Lestranges (Bellatrix, Rodolphus, and > > Rabastan), and the fear-filled boy, Barty Crouch Jr. They don't > > bind Bagman; they only rattle ominously, suggesting that his > > crime, if any, is minor. And in Harry's case, they don't even > > rattle. So, yes, I think the chair can magically sense guilt, and > > I see no evidence that Bagman is skilled at anything other than > > Quidditch and "commentating." > > Goddlefrood replies: > I can only speculate on this and say that the chair may act in the > manner you describe. Or perhaps it is itself a loyal Quidditch fan? > Or even perhaps it can be fooled like other dark detectors, if it is > indeed one. Valky: I would argue that the rattling chains support Goddlefrood's theoretical DE Bagman, much rather than counter it. If I understand you correctly Goodlefrood, (cute name BTW), you have implied that Bagman employs his Wimbourne Wasps Beater specialty in battle, which goes to the BBDE's curses bouncing around the room and hitting from behind in a spectacular way. If that is the case, there *is* a stray spell in the hallway battle, that Harry supposes comes from the BBDE and hits another DE (I think you entioned that). I would say, that the rattling chains indicate Bagman is certainly *partially* guilty of the crime he is on trial for, if indeed that is what they do (and I tend to agree with Carol, that is what they do). In which case other misdeeds such as cheating on his bets, which we *don't know* was happening during VWI, might not have anything to do with the guilt that is implied in the pensieve. Bagman is on trial for aiding Death Eaters, and the chains rattle ominously as though they *want* to lock him up for something, but he's up on the wrong charge, so they can't. The charge he should be up on, in that case *could* be that he was a Death Eater but one that doesn't necessarily always *aid them*. All befitting of an ex-beater who 'accidentally' knocks out/kills his so called cohorts in battle. It's my read of Bagman that he mainly likes getting rich, however it might be accomplished. So, being among the DE's for the paycheck, but not adverse to using DE activities to knock out someone else so a larger slice of the pie will go to him, are characteristics that do fit Bagman, and they do fit the BBDE's behaviour. He didn't kill anyone in Hagrids Hut, except the poor innocent Bowtruckles. In any case, thanks Goddlefrood for the excellent outside the square theory, I am looking forward to reading the others you've promised. Valky From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 14 05:53:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:53:36 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141579 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jessicabathurst" wrote: > Ironically, if Snape has been tasked to protect Draco (and in the > Dumbledore way of things, he means Draco's soul as well as his > body), he would only have to kill Dumbledore if that task succeeded - > if Draco gave up the idea that he could be a murderer. > > Yours, > Jessica > > (who wonders: if Snape is Jewish, does the Kol Nidrei absolve him of > an Unbreakable Vow? How would that work, theologically?) Pippin: I suppose it would protect him from the spiritual consequences of breaking a vow, but not, alas, the material ones. But, to wrench this issue firmly back on topic, having spent an entire day pleading for forgiveness and meditating on the Prophet Jonah who had to ask the sailors to throw him into the sea, I suddenly wonder if Dumbledore was pleading for forgiveness too. Could he have been asking Snape to forgive him for putting him in an impossible position by refusing to let Snape withdraw? Snape had only vowed to protect Draco to the best of his ability; if Dumbledore had sacked Snape and banished him from the school, he wouldn't have had to carry out the third part of the vow either. Pippin From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 05:24:23 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051014052423.16812.qmail@web34903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141580 Nora wrote: "There are, natch, many different categories of payoff. You have to leave open the possibility that she's been laughing at how we've contorted ourselves to explain Snapeykins, while the reality is something far more direct. The reality is certainly something that she knows, and likes to drop little hints to us about how she knows it and we don't." CH3ed: Great analysis! I agree with pretty much everything especially with the quote above. I find JKR very creative and very realistic at the same time. Her WW is a wonderful fantasy and yet so true to the real world that when I get down nowadays I start looking around for a dementor. I love the metaphors of the boggarts being a person's deepest fear, and the way to neutralize it is to make fun of it in a rather practical term (one has to imagine how to manipulate what you fear into doing something funny), or the dementors being the stand in for depression (which one repels by remembering the good things, the happy things), or getting ones soul sucked out by a dementor being comparable to becoming a vegetable (poor Sunny Von Bulow, etc), etc. JKR insists there would not be a Book 8, but I'm still hoping she would consider writing the actual 'Hogswart: A History', and other texts mentioned in the series. Keeping my fingers crossed (and trying hard but unsuccessfully to cross my stubby toes, too). CH3ed --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 14 06:17:38 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:17:38 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > Just considerably less well-behaved and contributing to the welfare > of the school than others, and to at least some conceptions of > society as a whole (not to mention pesky lurking ideas like the > Good). If Slughorn is a representative Slytherin, I suppose it's an > improvement over Snape, Lucius Malfoy, and Voldemort. > > But then I can also specialize in damning with faint praise. :) > Pippin: I've been reading a book about women in the Middle Ages, and there are some striking parallels between the medieval attitude toward women and the prevailing view of Slytherin. Women were associated with the serpent (through Eve), they were generally thought to be weaker in character and apt to meddle with Dark Magic. Of course it was recognized that women *could* be virtuous, heroic and brave, but these qualities were thought to be much, much rarer in women than in men. There was much ink spilt over the desirability and the difficulty of finding a 'good' woman. This makes me wonder if we aren't being set up for a *tremendous* reversal, in which we see that Slytherin, left weaker than the other Houses by the desertion or exile of its founder, became the target on which all the other Houses projected their fears. Perhaps Slytherins aren't really any worse than the other Houses, except in so far as they buy into the image the other Houses have of them. And perhaps the Gryffindors aren't really better, except, again, as they buy into the lofty expectations that everyone has of them. Could this be the key to uniting the Houses? Pippin From djklaugh at comcast.net Fri Oct 14 06:24:32 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:24:32 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141582 >Geoff: > Moving on to the subject of Dumbledore doing wandless magic, (snip) > Potioncat: > I can't come up with the canon but I think Snape has also performed > wandless magic, and so has Lupin. (Lupin would have been in PoA, with a > flame.) I think if a healthy DD had been wandless on the Tower, the DEs > would still have been in trouble. (snip) The major example of wandless magic IMO is Apparation and Disapparation. In all the instances in all the books of this ability no one ever waves a wand to achieve Apparation. I think also the Apparation Test is the "certification" exam for wizards and witches. Not just a rite of passage, a coming of age experience. But *proof* that one is fully a wizard/witch. Because it shows that the individual can indeed do wandless magic and can act with Deliberation and Determination to achieve their Destination (ie can pull all elements of successful magic into play and achieve a specific goal through the use of magic without "props" and without leaving out any essential element - without splinching themselves). Although Harry has not yet taken his test nor graduated from Hogwarts, he is, again IMO, fully a wizard now because he not only Apparated himself back to Hogsmead after the cave visit, he also brought DD back with him and Side-Along Apparation is much harder to do. And DD at the end of CoS not only did wandless magic with his hand clap... it also was nonverbal as we did not hear him utter a spell or incantation. I think wizards/witches of DD's power can do magic pretty much anyway they want to.. with wand or without wand, verbal or nonverbal.. Deb (djklaugh) who thinks DD taught Harry a whole lot more about the use of magic during their Pensieve journeys than Harry or anyone else realizes. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 07:09:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:09:41 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Hunting - Time, Skill, Knowledge, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141583 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > bboyminn wrote: > > On the Horcruxes in general, the whole process of tracking > > them down seems too complex and time consuming using normal > > methods. > > > ...edited.. > > > > While the known Horcruxes seem a near impossible task, the > > 'Founder's Horcrux' really is an impossible task. ... > > > > Somehow some 'shortcuts' have to enter the picture. Somehow some > > new mysterious source of knowledge has to come into the picture; > > > Valky now: > ...edited... > > The first is the Hufflepuff cup, it is identified, but not located. > Now it seems pretty strange, ... *Dumbledore clearly identified* > exists but that Dumbledore gives no open clues to it's whereabouts > while he teaches Harry. > > The second is the Founders object that is unidentified, Dumbledore > gives Harry a strong hint toward suspecting it is Ravenclaw's ... > > ...edited... > > > So here's how I construe that into the clues I wrote above: > > The Unknown Object- > There is just *not* enough information given about this one. So I am > almost 100% sure that this is the one where the clue to its location > needs to be pulled out of the memories. Incedentally, that leads > directly to London, ... > > The Hufflepuff Cup - > ... Why didn't Dumbledore find this one for Harry. ... this is the > one that needs a slightly *huge* shortcut. And that .. needs,..., > to have been ... preventing Dumbledore from retrieving it. I have > two scenarios there. One may be that it is in the possession of a > Death Eater .... But ... it seems more logical for the DE's to turn > up in London .... The other explanation which I like better is that > this Horcrux has already *been found*, like the Locket. Someone has > already had a fair swipe at destroying it too, so all Harry has to > do is turn up and finish the job. ... > > As for the Locket. Well a BIG shortcut on the Hufflepuff Chalice > and the unknown object being found nice an close to home in London > should scale the timeframe down enough to fit in a trip to Number 12 > and Azkaban, yes? > > Valky bboyminn: First, I apologies because there is no way I can say what I have to say without sounding rude. I know you are just speculating on the possibilities but what I hear you saying is like asking why didn't Dumbledore give Harry the winning lottery numbers. I mean it can't be that hard, we all know the numbers will be between 1 and 50 (or whatever). It's easy to say a Death Eater has /it/ or that /it/ is in London, but that doesn't really matter because the hard part is for Harry to DISCOVER which Death Eater has it and WHERE in London it is located. And that discovery process completely ignores the knowledge need to overcome the protections. So, it could be in London, but for all Harry knows it could be in Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Amsterdam, or anyone of a hundred other cities. Saying it's in London is easy, but Harry discovering that is hard. You ask why Dumbledore didn't find the Hufflepuff Cup for Harry. That's an easy question to ask, but HOW? How can Dumbledore possibly know where it's at? He exhausted himself and nearly all his resources finding the location of the Ring and the Locket. How could he even begin to guess the location of the Cup; and he, in fact, can't even guess what the /Founder's/ object is? You suggest Harry use the /memories/ but what memories? We have seen all the memories Dumbledore had on the subject. True there may be a few more memories available but what are the odds that they are related to this specific subject. So again, I comment with my apologies. I realize you are speculating on outcomes, but outcomes are the easy part. The PROCESS of reaching those outcomes is the hard part; that's what takes up all the time. Find a Horcrux in London is easy once you've gone through the long impossible task of /discovering/ that it is in London. In a way, that's what scares me about the final book. JKR has set up what seems to be an insurmountable task for Harry. In addition to this insurmountable task, there are MANY unresolved plot issues. Many plot issue that MUST be resolved, and many more that I WANT resolved. So, I see a task that is not only insuperable* for the characters, but for the author too. As I said before, this will either be the most stunningly spectacular book ever written, or it will be a total dud. ... and only two short years left before we know. ;) Sorry if I came off with a bit of an attitude, I really am not trying to offend anyone. Just overwhelmed by the apparent magnitude of the task at hand. I do agree with your basic premise, it's just a few of the details that are bothering me. Steve/bboyminn * insuperable - means insurmountable, but I already used that word too many times. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 07:37:59 2005 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:37:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141584 Betsy Hp: > BUT, Slughorn does not support Voldemort. And Harry realizes > this. This is huge, IMO. Because, until HBP, Harry seemed quite > sure (and by extension many readers seemed to think) that Slytherin > house was the first stop to becoming a Death Eater. The fact that > Harry was able to recognize Slughorn's weaknesses but still not > classify him as evil is the first step in Harry realizing the worth > in Slytherin. PJ: I want to thank you for bringing something to the forefront of my mind that's been just out of reach since my first reading of HBP. I've been uncomfortable with Slughorn's character but never could figure out why he bothered me so much. After reading your comment, it finally dawned on me what the problem was. *HARRY* *IS* *USUALLY* *WRONG* about who the good guys are! (and DDM!Snape people think he's wrong even more often than the rest of us do) :-) The fact that Harry feels Slughorn is an "ok guy" makes me wonder if we aren't all having another heaping helping of JKR's sleight of hand... I wouldn't put it past her to keep using this gambit simply because we keep falling for it! :-) SSSusan: >Regardless of the answer to that, Betsy, you've made what I consider >to be an excellent point here about why it might *not* make much >sense for Sluggy to have brewed the cave potion. I mean, I still >LIKE the possibility, and I could definitely see it having happened >for the reasons presented upthread -- PJ: I wouldn't push that theory too far away just yet... After all, IF Harry is wrong (again) then Sluggy certainly did know what Riddle had planned with his soul - right down to how many times he planned to do it. Who better to help make the obstacles/poisons for the horcruxes than the potions teacher, HoH, and "horcrux advisor" Riddle knew so well? SSSusan: >However, as you point out, Harry has actually *learned* from Sluggy >the lesson that a person's being weak or having made mistakes DOESN'T >make the person evil or a DE. And if JKR were to introduce Sluggy as >cave-potion-brewer in Book 7, it really might work against that, >might water down that message which actually sank in to Harry. PJ again: This could be the way JKR is headed but I'm not going to bet the ranch on it. It just gels too nicely for me to skip happily down the "Sluggy is good" road. PJ From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 08:25:24 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:25:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141585 > Valky: -- > But then later in HBP Harry not only apparates brilliantly, he takes a > side-along passenger as well, without a hitch. Because he concentrates > and tries, and totally ignores the uncomfortable side effects. So I > see the same thing happening with Non-Verbal spells. Soon enough we'll > see Harry use a Non-verbal defense charm, possibly on Voldemort, that > is not only good, but Bloody Brilliant! and beyond the level he is > expected to be working at. Finwitch: Harry has been able to apparate before he even knew he was a wizard - at least I believe that he apparated onto the school roof when Dudley was chasing him. Just as when he apparated with Dumbledore - he NEEDED to do it, just as badly as when he was being chased by Dudley. I don't know if Harry's realised that yet, but once he does, he'll pass his apparition exam without effort. (You know, like his corporal patronus. Knowing he really CAN do it was what got it trough...) I think Harry can master any spell, verbally or non-verbally - even without a wand - just as long as he doesn't think about whether or not he CAN do it, only about doing it. (I think that's really the trouble that most Muggle-raised wizards/witches have, which is why Slughorn is so surprised that a Muggleborn could do so well...). Valky: --> But isn't it Dumbledore, himself, that totally dismisses all of these > notions by saying that Harry's power is greater than his, and by > telling Harry that Occlumency was a fiasco? Finwitch: I think so, yes. Harry can do what he needs to do. It's more his own disbelief in his abilities - much like with Neville and Merope - that's holding him back. He's already *done* non-verbal and wandless magic - apparating onto school roof, shrinking a sweater, turning a wig blue, growing his hair back overnight, vanishing that glass in the zoo (5th year spell, wasn't it?) -- all done with strong emotion, wandlessly and non-verbally. What Harry needs to learn, is full awareness that he can, as well as full control over his magical ability. That's what I think being a fully qualified wizard means. I think that Aberforth Dumbledore is the person who can help Harry to realise this. His brother doesn't know if he can read. I take that to mean that Aberforth can do spells just as Albus can: no incantation or wand required. I also think Aberforth doesn't appreciate reading at all, because all these spellbooks make one think that the correct incantation and wandmovement are necessary, when it in fact they're not. All they *really* need are the three D's. (Hermione's in for a shock!) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 09:17:24 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:17:24 -0000 Subject: My new favorite line from HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141586 "lily_paige_delaney" wrote: > > Chapter 8 - Snape Victorious > > Dumbledore has just announced that Snape is the new DADA teacher. > > Harry: > > "Well there's one good thing" he said savagely. "Snape'll be gone by > the end of the year." > > "What do you mean?" asked Ron > > "That job's jinxed. No one's lasted more than a year...Quirrell > actually died doing it. Personlly, I'm going to keep my fingers > crossed for another death..." > > I just love this bit and then Hermione's outraged reaction! Finwitch: You know, it's curious how these things go. Like the 2nd and the 3rd book, Harry misses the Sorting. In the first book (Harry mentions Quirrell) - they hear this *rumour* about the job being jinxed. However, I wonder about Harry's sudden *certainty* that it really is jinxed. He like takes it for granted! It's not until later that Dumbledore tells Harry that 'We've never managed to keep a DADA teacher more than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort.' But even during the start-of-term-feast Harry knows beyond doubt that the jinx is there. It's *very* curious. Until that moment, it was a mere rumour to Harry. Why this sudden certainty? Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 09:31:30 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:31:30 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141587 > > PJ: > I want to thank you for bringing something to the forefront of my mind > that's been just out of reach since my first reading of HBP. I've been > uncomfortable with Slughorn's character but never could figure out why he > bothered me so much. After reading your comment, it finally dawned on me > what the problem was. *HARRY* *IS* *USUALLY* *WRONG* about who the good > guys are! (and DDM!Snape people think he's wrong even more often than the > rest of us do) :-) Finwitch: Is he now? I have yet to see that Hagrid, Ron, Hermione or Albus Dumbledore turn out to be bad. I don't think they will, either. He always knew that Dobby was on his side... Nor did Harry err in trusting Sirius. As for Slughorn, Harry's 'not sure if he likes him too much.' Just like with Ollivander in PS. As for Snape, well, he was a Death Eater; he killed Dumbledore while Harry bore witness... I'd say Harry's doubts about him weren't all that groundless. Finwitch From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 10:23:06 2005 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:23:06 -0000 Subject: My new favorite line from HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141588 > zgirnius: > Harry needs to be more careful what he wishes for... Hi there, I've been gone for a while - moving house & that sort of thing. This is not in a straightforward relation to what you've got written there, but this sentence of yours made me think of some serious foreshadowing that Rowling employs in her work. Judging from these things, a careful and not too-in-love-with-complicated-theories reader can probably foresee the ultimate conclusion of the series. Has anyone been thinking of the irony in PoA, when, after Snape's outburst in the Hospital wing, Fudge tells to Dumbledore something along the lines of 'I'd watch my back from that bloke, if I were you,' and DD then replies that there's no reason to worry about Snape? Spooky, based on the fact that it was Fudge who was right and DD who was wrong. (Mind you, I'm not dealing with ESE!SS, ESG!SS, OFH!SS etc. here; I'm just stating a fact - that SS, in the end, *was* somebody who harmed DD.) I can't think of other long-in-advance foreshadowing (i.e. from HP1 to HP4, e.g. - like this one was from HP3 to HP6) on the top of my head, but I'm sure there are a lot of other examples. Have to admit, despite its flaws in terms of 'literary' writing, HP series will make a wonderful PhD topic :)) I'm already looking foreward to it. Cheers, Lolita From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 11:05:12 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:05:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141589 > Finwitch: > > Harry has been able to apparate before he even knew he was a wizard - > at least I believe that he apparated onto the school roof when Dudley > was chasing him. Just as when he apparated with Dumbledore - he > NEEDED to do it, just as badly as when he was being chased by Dudley. > I don't know if Harry's realised that yet, but once he does, he'll > pass his apparition exam without effort. (You know, like his corporal > patronus. Knowing he really CAN do it was what got it trough...) I > think Harry can master any spell, verbally or non-verbally - even > without a wand - just as long as he doesn't think about whether or > not he CAN do it, only about doing it. (I think that's really the > trouble that most Muggle-raised wizards/witches have, which is why > Slughorn is so surprised that a Muggleborn could do so well...). Ceridwen: I think you're onto something here. Harry, and other Wizarding children, can do spells without wands or speech. TR figured it out fairly early, and also learned how to control these powers. TR is noted to be a powerful wizard, and the Penseive memories show he has always been one. Young children don't fret over the mechanics or whether or not they can. They do what they *need* to do (apparate to the roof, disappear glass, intimidate an orphanage full of children), at least what's necessary in their opinions. For intuitives, learning the mechanics may be a step backwards. > Finwitch: > > I think so, yes. Harry can do what he needs to do. It's more his own > disbelief in his abilities - much like with Neville and Merope - > that's holding him back. He's already *done* non-verbal and wandless > magic - apparating onto school roof, shrinking a sweater, turning a > wig blue, growing his hair back overnight, vanishing that glass in > the zoo (5th year spell, wasn't it?) -- all done with strong emotion, > wandlessly and non-verbally. Ceridwen: Unformed thought: Could this be where love comes in? I assume that all accidental magic performed by children is the result of emotion. Fear, or desire, or whatever. A wand helps to direct that power, and learning helps to refine it. I just can't see how love will play out in directing and performing whatever magic it takes to vanquish Voldemort. > Finwitch: > > What Harry needs to learn, is full awareness that he can, as well as > full control over his magical ability. That's what I think being a > fully qualified wizard means. Ceridwen: And to that end, children are recorded and invited to attend Hogwarts. > Finwitch: > > I think that Aberforth Dumbledore is the person who can help Harry to > realise this. His brother doesn't know if he can read. I take that to > mean that Aberforth can do spells just as Albus can: no incantation > or wand required. I also think Aberforth doesn't appreciate reading > at all, because all these spellbooks make one think that the correct > incantation and wandmovement are necessary, when it in fact they're > not. All they *really* need are the three D's. (Hermione's in for a > shock!) Ceridwen: I love that last part! None of them needed book learning to do magic as children. If someone does it intuitively, he or she really doesn't need to learn it, only learn how to do it more effectively and deliberately. And even then, if that's the case with Aberforth, then someone who is that in tune intuitively doesn't really even need that. Of course, Aberforth may be a WW prodigy that way, but maybe Harry is, too. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 11:16:17 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:16:17 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141590 > Pippin: > I suppose it would protect him from the spiritual consequences of > breaking a vow, but not, alas, the material ones. But, to wrench this > issue firmly back on topic, having spent an entire day pleading for > forgiveness and meditating on the Prophet Jonah who had to ask > the sailors to throw him into the sea, I suddenly > wonder if Dumbledore was pleading for forgiveness too. Ceridwen: Oh. I never thought of it from that angle before. Everyone's in danger of dying, and it's all Jonah's fault. Hence, he must be sacrificed. He knew, yet he willfully went his own way. Is this the really big mistake and its consequences? > Pippin: > Could he have been asking Snape to forgive him for putting him in > an impossible position by refusing to let Snape withdraw? Snape had > only vowed to protect Draco to the best of his ability; if Dumbledore > had sacked Snape and banished him from the school, he wouldn't > have had to carry out the third part of the vow either. Ceridwen: Snape withdrawing would have broken his vow, but Dumbledore sacking him would have been beyond Snape's influence. Yes! But I don't see that it would have negated the third and worst part of the vow. If Draco doesn't succeed (he didn't, he couldn't in the end kill Dumbledore) then Snape would have to do it. And if he was sacked, he could still have come in that night to finish off the deed through the Vanishing Cabinet with the other DEs. I do like the alternative explanation of Dumbledore pleading for forgiveness. I don't know if I can buy it without a reveal in book 7, but it may tie into whatever revelations he learned during his trial by Penseive Potion. People have speculated that Dumbledore, while being great, isn't able to connect with Mortal Wizards' thoughts, feelings and concerns simply because they aren't his, or that he can naturally rise above them. Could the Potion have given him some insight which made him long to make amends? Ceridwen. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 14 13:26:04 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:26:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Valky: > But there is another matter of Non Verbal spells, which I think OTOH > *is* forshadowed as something Harry can use effectively. When he gets > the Stone out of the mirror, he is saying nothing, and yet he makes it > happen effortlessly. So on the matter of the Non-verbal magic, I think > Harry *is* going to apply himself to it, and I am fairly certain he > won't find it all that hard, I think it will come to him a bit like > apparating did. Geoff: I'm not sure I would agree with you that this is Harry performing non- verbal or wandless magic. The Mirror of Erised is an interesting artefact. Taking a couple of quotes from Dumbledore: 'Harry thought. Then he said slowly, "It shows us what we want... whatever we want..." "Yes, and no," said Dumbledore quietly "It shows us nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts."' (PS "The Mirror of Erised" p.157 UK edition) 'Harry tried to understand this but it made his head pound so he stopped. "And sir, there's one more thing..." "Just the one?" "How did I get the Stone out of the Mirror?" "Ah, now, I'm glad you asked me that. It was one of my more brilliant ideas and between you and me, that's saying something. You see, only one who wanted to find the Stone - find it but not use it - would be able to get it..." (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.217 UK edition) Now this, to me, places the Mirror, along with the Sorting Hat and Riddle's diary, in the danger zone of: "Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.242 UK edition) Now it is probable that the Hat and the Mirror are accepted as being trustworthy by a long history of reliability but it seems that the Mirror, like the Hat, has the ability to think for itself as it seemingly possesses the power to read a viewer's mind and determine their deepest wishes. So, coupling this power with the fact that Dumbledore has "programmed" how someone can get hold of the Stone, I believe that when Harry was thinking about the need to get hold of the Stone to keep it away from Quirrell, these two factors came into play and it wasn't magic on Harry's part which placed the Stone in his pocket. The Stone and the Mirror were acting together to channel events through him. From aorta47 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 12:53:05 2005 From: aorta47 at yahoo.com (mmm skyscraper) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: Some Horcruxes Are Bigger Than Others Message-ID: <20051014125305.39776.qmail@web34506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141592 Thanks to Edis and the Math of Ripping post for inspiration. Tune: The Smiths 'Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others' >From Hogsmeade to Durmstrang There is but one concern I (might) have just discovered : Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcrux's brothers are bigger than Other horcrux's brothers Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcrux's brothers are bigger than Other horcrux's brothers As Snape said to Sinistra As he opened a crate of toads : Oh, I say : Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcrux's brothers are bigger than Other horcrux's brothers Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcruxes are bigger than others Some horcrux's brothers are bigger than Other horcrux's brothers Send me the potion book ... The one that you wrote on ... Send me the potion book ... The one that you wrote on ... And I'll send you mine Mark __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Fri Oct 14 11:48:43 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:48:43 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141593 > > Pippin: > > Could he have been asking Snape to forgive him for putting him in > > an impossible position by refusing to let Snape withdraw? Snape had > > only vowed to protect Draco to the best of his ability; if Dumbledore > > had sacked Snape and banished him from the school, he wouldn't > > have had to carry out the third part of the vow either. > Ceridwen: > Snape withdrawing would have broken his vow, but Dumbledore sacking him > would have been beyond Snape's influence. Yes! > > But I don't see that it would have negated the third and worst part of > the vow. If Draco doesn't succeed (he didn't, he couldn't in the end > kill Dumbledore) then Snape would have to do it. And if he was sacked, > he could still have come in that night to finish off the deed through > the Vanishing Cabinet with the other DEs. This may require careful analysis of the wording of the third vow and, sorry, I don't have the book with me, but if Draco decides of his own free will to give up (as he is about to do when the DEs come in), what does that entail for Snape? Does the vow become null and void? Does Snape have to try to kill DD 'to the best of his abilities'? Or does the vow mean that he must kill DD or die, and even if he really tries but fails he still dies? On a related note... recall that Snape was *sleeping in his room* while DD and Harry were in the cave and the DE were invading Hogwarts. This is highly uncharacteristic of Snape: he is always around when something is going on, always there to punish or save Harry, according to the situation. Is it possible that DD had ordered him to go to bed and remain there? If Flitwick had not gone to Snape?s office and Draco had made up his mind a little faster, is it possible that DD, Draco and Snape could all have been saved? Nicolau From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 14 13:40:47 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:40:47 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141594 > Ceridwen: > Snape withdrawing would have broken his vow, but Dumbledore sacking him > would have been beyond Snape's influence. Yes! > > But I don't see that it would have negated the third and worst part of > the vow. If Draco doesn't succeed (he didn't, he couldn't in the end > kill Dumbledore) then Snape would have to do it. And if he was sacked, > he could still have come in that night to finish off the deed through > the Vanishing Cabinet with the other DEs. Pippin: It depends on how you figure Snape escaped dying for Draco's other failures. "And, should it prove necessary...if it seems Draco *will* fail" (emphasis mine) could mean that Snape is only obliged to intervene if he perceives Draco is *about* to fail and timely intervention by him will mitigate the failure. If failure has already happened by the time Snape finds out, he's off the hook. If Snape had been sacked, the Order would not have allowed him to enter the tower without a fight. Or Narcissa and Bella might have been willing to undo the vow (if that's possible) rather than take the risk Snape would go to Voldemort (having nothing to lose) and reveal their willingness to discuss a top secret mission with someone whom they didn't know was in on it and, in Bella's case, suspected of being an enemy spy. Whatever happened that night, we are due for a reveal in Book Seven -- Rowling admitted as much by saying she can't tell us very much now. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Oct 14 13:51:33 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:51:33 -0700 Subject: WILL AND WON'T Message-ID: <004801c5d0c6$63a5cf00$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141595 I've finally started rereading HBP. i needed to give it time to process I guess, though I've usually reread all the other books right away. i just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the third chapter! i laughed the first time I read it and I laughed again this time. i loved Dumbledore and the Dursleys, the glasses of Meade, Kreacher, every bit of it! Harry's thought that experience had taught him to stay out of the reach of uncle Vernon made me think he had indeed suffered more than neglect, and I reveled in Dumbledore telling them off in his own unique way. And since Kreacher betrayed Sirius, i couldn't help chuckling at his having to obey Harry. Since they can't set him free, he did get off pretty easily when it's all said and done. Anyway, I just wanted to write about something that was not related to did or didn't Snape do something or other! Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 14 14:06:37 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:06:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141596 Nora: > In fact, I think the whole "JKR is super-twisty" line of argument, > which is practically fandom gospel, is probably overrated. We haven't > had anything Scabbers-class BANG-y in wot, three books or so--but PoA > continually gets pulled up as the model to follow, rather than the > exceptionally fine (but exceptional) twist of plotting. > I expect some things to be resolved and explained, but I suspect I > expect more of it to stand as 'dude, just the way that things happen, > you know', than you do, my dear Pippin. That said, consequently my > rate of wildly off guesses is much lower. :) Pippin: ::shrugs:: There's no penalty for being wrong. Er, except for looking a bit silly. Whether people who spend hours of their time discussing an imaginary universe on the Internet should be worried about that is not for me to say . I predicted that if and when any of my fiercely defended theories proved wrong, there'd be plenty of disappointed Shippers eating crow along with me, and *that* prediction, you must admit, was dead on. I suppose it's a statistical certainty that somewhere in this huge archive of posts are the predictions of The Poster Who Has Never Yet Been Wrong. But I'd give even money it's not a name even old post trawlers would recognize off hand. I don't read posts to find out what's going to happen in the next book, I read them to be entertained, and sometimes enlightened, by what's going through my fellow posters' minds. All predictions can tell us is what the readers expect (or fear) to get out of the next book, not what the author intends to put there. All ESE!Lupin tells you is that I expect a nice, juicy mystery plot, and have taken the liberty of inventing one from the information at hand. As I don't consider myself a brilliant inventor, it's my assumption that JKR went there first. I could be wrong. But I don't see how you could take JKR's constant references to clues, hints, red herrings and detective stories at face value and *not* conclude that there is an unresolved mystery plot and that it's rather bangy. Whether it has anything to do with ESE!Lupin and/or DDM!Snape we'll all know when Book Seven comes out and not before, but we have established, I think, that neither can be refuted without resort to Flints and/or poetic license. Either is, of course, a possibility, but Rowling has corrected Flints that seemed to impinge on major plot points, and she has never yet, to my knowledge, explained away a major, plot- relevant discrepancy by claiming artistic license. Pippin sorry for the late answer to this post From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 14 14:32:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:32:56 -0000 Subject: WILL AND WON'T In-Reply-To: <004801c5d0c6$63a5cf00$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141597 Sherry: > I've finally started rereading HBP. i needed to give it time to process I > guess, though I've usually reread all the other books right away. i just > wanted to say how much I enjoyed the third chapter! Potioncat: I think the positioning of "Spinner's End" to "Will and Won't" is very interesting, particularly as the former closes with "I will" repeated three times. Lots could be made of the two different servants and how they serve a master that they hate or love as that compares to a servant who serves two masters, one that he loves and one that he hates. > Sherry: > Anyway, I just wanted to write about something that was not related to did or didn't Snape do something or other! Potioncat: Oh, well then, never mind. :-) From maria.elmvang at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 13:49:45 2005 From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:49:45 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My new favorite line from HBP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17785fc30510140649v7db8fc48nd69f421414c56511@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141598 Finwitch wrote: > But even during the start-of-term-feast Harry knows beyond doubt that > the jinx is there. It's *very* curious. Until that moment, it was a > mere rumour to Harry. Why this sudden certainty? Maria: I think that after 5 years, with no DADA-teacher lasting more than a single year, he's basing his certainty on experience. It may only be a *rumour* that the job is jinxed, but nothing has yet managed to prove to him that the rumour is wrong, so I think he's just taking it for granted. 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 nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 15:10:35 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:10:35 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?JKR=92s_recipe_for_a_fandom_hero_(was:_Twist_JKR=3F)_?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141599 Nora wrote: > Neri wrote the bestest ever description of Snape and how JKR has > constructed him once, which I think he should repost or link to. > *nudge nudge* Neri : Why, thank you. I think you meant this one, which was originally posted in another forum some time ago and wasn't easy to locate. Keep in mind it's pre-HBP. I'll add a few post-HBP updates in the bottom. ******************************************************** I think that with Snape, JKR hit on the perfect recipe for a fandom hero. She did it in part unintentionally, I suspect, but still, this is the mark of true genius. The recipe, as far as I can make it, is: 1. Don't make this character the main hero of the story (it would clash with 5). 2. But OTOH, don't make him an evil overlord, unless there's someone or something more evil than him. 3. Make him as nasty as it's possible to be without being downright repulsive. 4. Make the main hero a nice good-doer, so he'll be a bit dull by comparison. 5. Reveal as little as possible about the character's past and motives. 6. The little you do reveal, make as controversial and inconsistent as possible. 7. Make this character involved in as many critical plot turns as possible. 8. Balance the amount of good he does precisely with the amount of bad he does (warning: any deviation from an exact balance will ruin the effect). 9. Hint that he possibly did some Very Bad Things, but don't give any details. 10. Also hint that he possibly saved the day, but again don't give any details. 11. Plant suggestions that he might be playing a part, but do not repeat DO NOT supply any real proof that he indeed does so. 12. Make him the nemesis of the good hero. The more conflict between them ? the better. 13. But OTOH, make him save the good hero's butt once or twice. 14. However, underplay 13 and make it appear as if he only did it for is own good. 15. Add plenty of diabolic characteristics, but nothing concrete. 16. Do not repeat DO NOT make him involved in ANY romantic relationships (the fans will take care of that). 17. Plant clues that he was badly abused in his childhood and/or youth. 18. However, while you're on 17, never make him appear nice or innocent himself. 19. Make several good characters trash him repeatedly. 20. However, add one reason, irrational as possible, why we should trust him, and play it again and again against all logic. ***************************************************** In light of HBP, it seems that two corrections for this recipe are due: 8a. After this character has already attained the indisputable status of a fandom hero, it is no longer necessary to maintain the exact balance between the amount of good and bad that he does. On the contrary, at this stage it is best to make him do as much bad as possible. It will make the fans work harder explaining why it's not REALLY bad. 11a. If it's absolutely necessary to admit that this character indeed plays a part, make him play two contradicting parts, and do not supply any proof which of them is acting and which is sincere, or if they're both acting. I'd also add one new item: 21. If a nickname for this character is required by the plot, take care to choose one that is self-contradicting. Neri From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 14 15:48:19 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:48:19 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141600 Betsy: > > (Have you read Magpie's post on Slytherin? She points out that by > > rejecting Slytherin, Hogwarts has, in a sense, not allowed > > Slytherins to contribute to the school. Something that obviously > > needs to change. It's here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141348 ) > > I don't particularly buy the construction of agency with Hogwarts > ganging up on/rejecting Slytherin. They're not the oppressed, > they're The Man, in infancy. So I read it more as self-isolation > than that. YMMV. Magpie: Actually, to speak for the post in question, I did not suggest that kind of agency (because I don't see things that way either). I said that symbolically, the hat's story about Slytherin is important for the final victory. He says all the founders were fighting until Slytherin left (which is self-isolation right there), but that this has still left the school broken. In the last two books, the books where the Sorting Hat gives this warning, the three houses coming together or huge protections put up around the school are all weakened by the fact that Slytherin, the rogue house, is working against those protections. It's not so simplistic as the other three houses being mean to Slytherin and so the poor Slytherins aren't allowed to be a part of it. It's just that this is the situation and, according to the hat, it must be fixed (on both sides) if the school is to stand. Having Slytherin as a common enemy is not the best way to glue the school together. This, to me, is beginning in HBP with Harry's pov on Slytherin not completely turning around but being different than it ever has been before, and Draco going through a year-long arc that ends with him ready to consider a change of perspective himself. As Dumbledore stressed in the tower, it wasn't just about things not working out, it was about those pesky choices again. Things actually do work out the way he'd hoped to a certain extent. When his plan works and he's there with the wand and a helpless Dumbledore, things get interesting. -m From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Oct 14 16:24:02 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:24:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) Message-ID: <1f3.14343bd7.308135a2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141601 In a message dated 10/13/2005 1:59:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: I can't come up with the canon but I think Snape has also performed wandless magic, and so has Lupin. (Lupin would have been in PoA, with a flame.) ---------------------------- Sherrie here: I don't have the book with me, but it was on the train - he conjures up a glowing fire in his hand. I'm also a fan of the Deryni books, so I thought at once, "Oh! Handfire!" That's the last we've heard of such a talent, though. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Oct 14 16:30:26 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:30:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > But I don't see how you could take JKR's constant references to > clues, hints, red herrings and detective stories at face value and > *not* conclude that there is an unresolved mystery plot and that > it's rather bangy. Whether it has anything to do with ESE!Lupin > and/or DDM!Snape we'll all know when Book Seven comes out and > not before, but we have established, I think, that neither can > be refuted without resort to Flints and/or poetic license. > > Either is, of course, a possibility, but Rowling has corrected > Flints that seemed to impinge on major plot points, and she > has never yet, to my knowledge, explained away a major, plot- > relevant discrepancy by claiming artistic license. > But what's a Flint? What's a Bangy plot? What's poetic license? What's a clue? What's a red herring? What's a major plot point? Now we are truly into philosophical territory, because so MUCH of this argument hangs on the understanding of those words. To wit, many people very fervently believed that certain aspects of the Harry/Hermione relationship were clues that gave insight into a major plot point, i.e. a developing H/Hr ship. Others held that these things were in fact red herrings. Many said if these points were dismissed that would constitute introducing a bunch of Flints. And yet, it turned out they were, from JKR's perspective, neither clues nor red herrings. They were...nothing. They weren't even Flints, from her perspective, they were just things that happened that didn't necessarily have much meaning, or at least not any meaning beyond the obvious. I know some people argue that shipping is a special case that shouldn't be used as a test for the rest of the plot. I don't really hold with that, as I see shipping as being very central to the development of the story, albeit a central component that hasn't been handled very well. Still, there are plenty of other examples that don't involve shipping. Many people were (and possibly still are) firmly convinced of such things as the importance of the gum wrappers, a too-strong obliviation spell cast on Neville, the central role of Mark Evans, etc. With regard to Snape, specifically, you don't have to go far back to find people who thought his connection with vampires was well foreshadowed and inevitable, or that it was clearly foreshadowed that Harry would "rise above" and learn to ignore Snape -- maybe even apologize to him -- as a key component of becoming a player in the fight against Voldemort. All of which came to naught, and all of which were probably not clues or foreshadowings, or even red herrings, but simply obvious events into which fans read far too much. I don't think Nora is denying that there will be some twists and bangs. I think she is warning us that they may well not be the twists and bangs so many people firmly expect and firmly believe to have been strongly foreshadowed. Also I think she is reminding us that in the course of the series twists and bangs are actually not as prominent in the plot arc as many people believe. We had a major twist in book one, and no real twist in book two (I agree that Voldy being the heir of Slytherin wasn't surprising, and that the Ginny plot didn't have any effect on the series as a whole, although if you want to call it a shipping foreshadow, I guess I can go with that). Book three was very twisty and bangy, with two major twists (three if you want to count Lupin's lycanthropy). Book four had one twist that, like Ginny in CoS, really didn't carry beyond that book. Books five and six haven't really had any major twists or bangs at all, with the possible exception that James wasn't quite the saint Harry thought (we still don't know if that will turn out to be a major plot point or not), although obviously important plot developments have occurred. I think part of the problem is that JKR sees things from a very different perspective from her readers. She often, I think, forgets that we don't know the whole series. Thus she is, I think, often very baffled as to why people don't pick up on things she thinks are perfectly obvious, or why people insist that certain things are foreshadowed when in fact they are ... nothing. Because of this bafflement, her remarks, which I think she means to be helpful, often just further stir the murk. Of course, it also doesn't help that we don't have the tone in which she says things. To take one example, when she said in the three part interview, in answer to whether Snape is evil, "Well, you've READ THE BOOK, what do you think?" she could have been conveying completely different meanings depending on whether he tone was baffled, level and straightforward, light and humorous, arch and mysterious, or sarcastic. So, to sum up, I suspect that things which seem like mysteries to us seem to JKR to be perfectly obvious. I suspect that the twists and bangs we get may not be the twists and bangs we expect, and that the twists and bangs may not be as major and earthshaking as people expect. As Nora points out (I believe, and I'll point out if she doesn't), we are getting toward the finish line, and there are a LOT of things JKR has to wrap up in one book. At a minimum she must find four horcruxes, destroy Voldemort, deal with Snape, deal with Wormtail, deal with Draco, get Ron/Hermione going, have an Umbridge appearance (she's already said that's going to happen), show Bill and Fleur's wedding, finish off with the Dursleys, and include her epilogue. That's at a bare MINIMUM. In addition, there are all sorts of other subplots, like Lupin and Fenrir or the fate of Percy, that people will be terribly disappointed if she leaves hanging. In other words, JKR has a LOT to do in a book she wants to keep shorter than OOTP. That doesn't leave all that much room for twists and bangs, as twists and bangs have to be extensively explained to be satsifying (particularly in the last book, she can't put off an explanation till later) and that takes space. The more straightforward she keeps things, the more chance she has of completing the task she has set for herself -- albeit I don't envy her the task even were she to keep things as simple as possible. As I've said before, she really HAS backed herself into a corner. The problem is, unlike Harry, she can't wave her hands and apparate out this time (or at least I hope she doesn't do that again). Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 16:49:36 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:49:36 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Ceridwen: > > Snape withdrawing would have broken his vow, but Dumbledore > > sacking him would have been beyond Snape's influence. Yes! > > > > But I don't see that it would have negated the third and worst > > part of the vow. If Draco doesn't succeed (he didn't, he > > couldn't in the end kill Dumbledore) then Snape would have to do > > it. And if he was sacked, he could still have come in that night > > to finish off the deed through the Vanishing Cabinet with the > > other DEs. > Pippin: > It depends on how you figure Snape escaped dying for Draco's > other failures. "And, should it prove necessary...if it seems Draco > *will* fail" (emphasis mine) could mean that Snape is only > obliged to intervene if he perceives Draco is *about* to fail and > timely intervention by him will mitigate the failure. If failure > has already happened by the time Snape finds out, he's off the hook. > > ...edited... > > Pippin bboyminn: Once again I find myself starting with an apology...sorry. But I think this whole Unbreakable Vow 'thing' is way overrated. I think unless you construct and word the Vow with iron-clad certainty and precision, it is pretty much worthless. First I think we need to re-establish a frame of reference so that we are all working from what was actually said, rather than what it has grown to become in Fandom. What Narcissa originally asked - - - - HBP, Am Ed, HB, Pg - - - [Snape] "It might be possible ... for me to help Draco." [Narcissa] "Severus -- oh, Severus --- you would help him? Would you look after him, see he comes to no harm?" [Snape] "I can try." - - - - end quote - - - = - - - HBP, AM Ed, HB, Pg 36 - - - "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..." whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away), "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" - - - - end quote - - - - The first two are insignificant. In the first, all Snape has to do it 'watch' as Draco 'attempts'. Neither of them is required to succeed. In the second, he only has to act to the 'best of his ability'; so he doesn't have to succeed, he only has to try with in limits. Notice Snape physical reaction to the third part of the Vow. I think he is very confident about the first two, and the first two are afteral what he originally agreed to, but the third is obviously straying into territory that Snape hasn't planned on. Unfortunately he is committed, and it will look very bad if he backs out now. Again, I say if your life hangs in the balance, you make sure the Vow is worded as precisely as possible to make sure there is no uncertainty that could come back to haunt you later. Well, actually, I think if you are asking for a Vow, you word it with precision; if you are making the Vow, you want it worded as loosely and vaguely as possible. First off, the third Vow starts with a degree of vagueness. 'Should it prove necessary... if is seems Draco will fail...". Who decides if it 'proves necessary' and who decided when it 'seems' Draco will fail? Then we have 'the deed'; which deed? All the deeds that Voldemort has assigned, or can Snape pick which deed he wants to apply to the Vow? Can the Vow even apply if Snape doesn't know 'the deed' at the time he makes the Vow? Is it the deed that Draco volunteered for, or does and can it apply to the deed that was forced on Draco? I presonally believe that Draco discovered the Vanishing Cabinet connection and volunteed to get it working so that DE's could get into the castle undetected. Draco was more than willing to do that. But, I think Voldemort force upon Draco the additional task of killing Dumbledore; something Draco never planned on and never wanted. The first problem is that we are assuming Snape knows what the Deed is and that he knows it in it's entirety. If Snape only knows about the Vanishing Cabinet when he takes the Vow, is he then absolved of the 'killing Dumbledore' deed? And, most importantly, if it hinges on what Snape knows about the Deed, if he knows nothing, is he then inturn bound to nothing? And if he is bound to nothing, then reasonably, the Vow means nothing. This really does beg the question, can you make an Unknown Unbreakable Vow, can you vow to something while at the same time having no idea what that 'something' is? Further, let's say that Snape is bound to Draco's final and greatest task; although I seriously doubt it. No time frame is specified. There is nothing in the Vow that says that the instant Draco refuses, Snape must step forward or die. As I see it, all Snape has to do it maintain the /intent/ to kill Dumbledore and he can postpone it indefinitely. He can even pass up many chance to kill Dumbledore as long as he maintain the intent to do so at some point in the future. As far as the on-going enforcement of the Vow. The third section is fulfilled, and the first two only involve 'trying', he isn't required to suceed, so I don't see the Vow as being effectively inforce any longer. Overal, I see the whole Unbreakable Vow process riddled with loopholes, and these specific Vows are certainly vague and uncertain. I think fandom has made far too much of these Vows. Although, I understand that if you accept my premise, then that doesn't really leave us much to talk about. None the less, I see this whole Unbreakable Vow thing as way overblown. But then... that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From rh64643 at appstate.edu Fri Oct 14 18:49:21 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:49:21 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141604 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Deb" wrote: > The major example of wandless magic IMO is Apparation and > Disapparation. In all the instances in all the books of this > ability no one ever waves a wand to achieve Apparation. I think > also the Apparation Test is the "certification" exam for wizards > and witches. Not just a rite of passage, a coming of age > experience. But *proof* that one is fully a wizard/witch. Because > it shows that the individual can indeed do wandless magic and can > act with Deliberation and Determination to achieve their > Destination Although Harry has not yet taken > his test nor graduated from Hogwarts, he is, again IMO, fully a > wizard now because he not only Apparated himself back to Hogsmead > after the cave visit, he also brought DD back with him and Side- > Along Apparation is much harder to do. > And DD at the end of CoS not only did wandless magic with his > hand clap... I definitely see what you are saying here. However, do you think that maybe all this can be seen as magic as it pertains to an individual's own body? To use another example, McGonagall can transfigure into a cat without a wand, and the animagi can do the same. But when McGonagall transforms anything else, she uses a wand. In the Ministry of Magic scene in O.O.T.P, Dumbledore, who is the greatest wizard in the books and a specialist in Transfiguration, has to use his wand to transfigure the statues. In fact, we never see a real battle without the use of wands. I believe that the wands act as a kind of medium, channeling the magic of a wizard to forces outside of him or her. I simply cannot think of any curse or countercurse that is not shown with wand use in these books. I definitely think that if wands were not needed in magic battles, D.D and L.V would have shown us that in their battle. truthbeauty1 From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 14 20:10:34 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:10:34 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: . I simply cannot think of any curse or countercurse that is not shown with wand use in these books. I definitely think that if wands were not needed in magic battles, D.D and L.V would have shown us that in their battle. > Pippin: Quirrell attempts to kill Harry without a wand. "Then kill him, fool, and be done," screeched Voldemort. Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face-- The curse and counter-curse at the Quidditch match were probably performed wandlessly also. Someone would have noticed if either Snape or Quirrell had their wands out and pointed at Harry. Pippin From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 20:22:28 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:22:28 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > >I simply cannot think of any curse or countercurse that is not shown > with wand use in these books. I definitely think that if wands > were not needed in magic battles, D.D and L.V would have shown us > that in their battle. > > > Pippin: > Quirrell attempts to kill Harry without a wand. > > "Then kill him, fool, and be done," screeched Voldemort. > Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse, but Harry, > by instinct, reached up and grabbed Quirrell's face-- > > The curse and counter-curse at the Quidditch match were probably > performed wandlessly also. Someone would have noticed if either > Snape or Quirrell had their wands out and pointed at Harry. > > Pippin > There is also Legilimency. While Snape uses a wand in OOTP, he doesn't seem to use it directly as he flees Hogwarts in HBP, or as he interrogates Harry in the bathroom. Dumbledore also seems to practice Legilimency without a wand throughout the series. lealess From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 20:24:38 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:24:38 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > There is also Legilimency. Sorry, that's not a curse. Must read more carefully. lealess From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 20:42:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:42:58 -0000 Subject: Was it Slughorn? (was: The potion maker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141609 > >>Betsy hp: > > The fact that Harry was able to recognize Slughorn's weaknesses > > (and I think Harry *does* realize that he's benefitting from his > > fame and possible his mother) but still not classify him as evil > > is the first step in Harry realizing the worth in Slytherin. > >>Jen: > Hang on, I'm having another one of those Harry-is-acting-like-a- > Slytherin moments :). Is that what you meant here, about Harry > benefitting from his fame and his connections? > Betsy Hp: I was talking more about Slughorn's treatment of Harry overall. I think Harry did recognize, straight from the beginning, that Slughorn was interested in him mainly for his fame (and possibly because of Lily). I think Harry felt he might get away with his bezoar trick (as you mentioned in the part I snipped) because he's a favorite of Slughorn's already. I don't think the same trick would have worked for Ron, IOW. Though I *do* agree that Harry is getting in touch with his inner- Slytherin in HBP. He connects so deeply with young!Snape, manages (with a bit of help from Felix) to manipulate Slughorn, and starts to actually understand Draco. The manipulation of Slughorn was especially interesting, I think, when compared with Hermione's utter failure in the "Draco's Detour" chapter, and with Tom Riddle's success in getting the horcrux information. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Of course, I could be wildly wrong and Slughorn will actually > > provide some crucial information (he was, after all, Snape's head > > of house). And it could turn out that it's *very* neccessary for > > Harry to find out what potion was in the cave and therefore seek > > out its brewer. However, JKR rarely travels back over familiar > > ground, IIRC, so I suspect she's going to move on. > >>Jen: > I hope not! Not so much about Slughorn, your thoughts on why he > was included for thematic reasons rings true. However, I can't let > go of learning what happened to Dumbledore while drinking the > potion, and suspect Slughorn is the only one who could tell Harry > that information... > Betsy Hp: Or Snape could. JKR *did* leave us hanging with Dumbledore's one-sided conversation didn't she. So maybe she will give us further information on that. We shall see. I snipped it, but I like your theory on Dumbledore's boggart. Anything where he either causes harm to his students, or somehow can't protect them rings true to me. Betsy Hp From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 14 20:50:12 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:50:12 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141610 Lealess: > There is also Legilimency. While Snape uses a wand in OOTP, he > doesn't seem to use it directly as he flees Hogwarts in HBP, or as he > interrogates Harry in the bathroom. Dumbledore also seems to > practice Legilimency without a wand throughout the series. Potioncat: You're right, he used a wand during Occlumency lessons. He doesn't use a wand any of the other times he appears to be performing Legilmency. I traced back upthread as far as I could and came to a question something along the lines of "Why do these wizards use a wand when historically wands aren't needed for magic?" I'd have to say, "Because JKR said to." That seems to be the question that started this portion of the thread. I'm not sure if we've taken this off on a tangent or not. Back to the example of the jinxed broom, from SS/PS chapter 11: "Snape was in the middle of the stands opposite them. He had his eyes fixed on Harry and was muttering nonstop under his breath." Hermione says he's jinxing the broom. Later she says to Hagrid: "I know a jinx when I see one, Hagrid. I've read all about them! You've got to keep eye contact and Snape wasn't blinking at all." There is also a quick sentence about her knocking Quirrell over, but no wands are mentioned for either wizard. I know at one time we wondered if you had to speak out loud for a spell to work. Of course, we found out you can work silent magic. You'd think the DE at the DoM battle would have done a better job with his curses. But maybe he didn't have Snape as a DADA teacher, or he took DADA as seriously as Draco does. Perhaps 7th years learn wandless magic? But, if it requires eye contact or at least a contant line of sight, I wouldn't think it would work too well in a battle. The other question is, have we seen any wandless magic in HBP? From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 14 20:59:27 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:59:27 -0000 Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141611 Elyse: > > I have asked this question ["Every killing tears the soul?"] > > before as well. This is precisely my contention with the whole > > Killing-tears-the-soul so called "canon". elfundeb: > What Slughorn says is this: > "You must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and > whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." > [here Riddle asks how you do it] > "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing > murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon > creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would > encase the torn portion -- " > > I agree that not every killing tears the soul (take the example > given earlier of the hiker accidentally dislodging a rock which > kills another hiker below); however, I think this language very > strongly implies that every *murder* tears the soul. > > And, yes, this means Voldemort's soul is in very sad shape. ...even for Voldemort, most murders do not result in the > creation of Horcruxes. He has to take the further action of > encasing the soul bit. SSSusan: I think this is just *such* an important point. I have argued since early on post-HBP that there is possibly a difference between cold- blooded murder and a class of what I would call "lesser killings," which would include accidental deaths, acting upon a superior officer's command during wartime, and perhaps mercy killings. I am not convinced that the acts of "lesser killings" would result in a ripped soul. Before anybody yells at me ;-) I'm not saying I'm SURE. Nor am I saying that I have canon backup for this. I am merely saying that the quote elfundeb included, above, sure does seem to emphasize the *murder* part. And also that, while we don't know JKR's views on mercy killing or wartime killing, it is quite possible that she makes this distinction between them and murder/killing out of hatred or for personal gain. Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he believes to be the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for either Harry to kill Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry. He confirms this to Harry in OoP, and he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell Harry, "Gee, I hate that you have to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!" In *my* mind, I could easily see the reason that DD does not say such a thing to Harry (even when the topic is right there before them as they talk about horcruxes!) as that he knows this is WAR, this is an issue of The Greater Good. And perhaps he knows or suspects that this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul. Or perhaps, OTOH, DD knows that it will rip Harry's soul, but he believes that it's WORTH it. (Keep that in mind when you consider my belief in DDM!Snape, likely following DD's command to kill him on the tower. See? I think I'm being consistent here! ;-)) This leads to the following comment of elfundeb's: > One further thought. We tend to assume that once a soul has been > torn, it cannot be mended. Perhaps this is because we are speaking > of Voldemort, who has a mile-long list of evil deeds to his name, > and no good deeds as far as we know. But I think that torn souls > can be repaired. Borrowing for a moment from my old catechism, > IIRC in the Catholic tradition, sin separates a human being from > God's love, and confession and repentance restores it. Why > shouldn't something like this be true in the Potterverse? > > So in the case of Snape (all things come back to Snape in the end, > yes?), I believe this thread was sparked by the assertion that > Snape has a ripped soul regardless of whether Dumbledore approved > his own killing. I suggest that regardless of whether Snape's act > would be regarded as a "supreme act of evil" (to quote Slughorn) > that split his soul, there is the possibility of redemption which > would mend the split (leaving a scar, to be sure, but still better > than an open wound). SSSusan: Yes! I go along with this, and I'm surprised that I've seen little discussion of this possibility of *mending* a torn soul. Not that I've been able to keep up with every post, so I might have missed it. :-| Whether I'm correct that not every killing rips the soul in the first place or Debbie's right that a torn soul can be mended, either way there's hope for Snape *if* he's remorseful AND there's hope for Harry, should he truly end up killing (as opposed to some other form of vanquishing) Voldy. elfundeb: > The difference between Snape and Voldemort is that by creating a > Horcrux, Voldemort has separated the soul pieces, precluding the > possibility of repair. His soul has been permanently diminished, > possibly foreclosing any possibility of redemption. SSSusan: I absolutely can see JKR going in this direction. There's a choice in most killings, that's for damn sure, but there's also a choice in what to do with the soul piece that was ripped off (if it was). Voldy's choice to create horcruxes sealed him as truly Evil and as uninterested in redemption. We don't know about Snape, but I have my suspicions. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 21:29:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:29:42 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141612 > >>Nora: > There are, natch, many different categories of payoff. You have > to leave open the possibility that she's been laughing at how > we've contorted ourselves to explain Snapeykins, while the reality > is something far more direct. > Betsy Hp: Weirdly enough, I see my understanding of Snape's character as being quite direct. YMMV, of course. > >>Nora: > Snape's interest as a character is something I'm going to > predict is actually somewhat more shortlived than the more fully > realized creatures on the page. So much of his fan interest is > predicated upon the multiple possibilities and the unknowable > issues and motivations. You kill off most of those, as I suspect > JKR is going to take a fiendish amount of glee in doing, and you > leave people high and dry to go sulk over their own nuked > backstories and ideas. Betsy Hp: Leaving Ron as a more complex character, IOW? While I'm quite sure JKR will leave us with the straight scoop on Snape, I really doubt it's going to be totally uninteresting. The discussions will be over, of course, with some folks celebrating and others not (to put it mildly ). But I don't think Snape will suddenly achieve the character blandness of say... oh, Tom, owner of the Leaky Cauldron. We know all there is to know about Sirius now, and he's still a favorite amongst the fans. If Snape is ESE, fans will love to hiss him. If Snape is DDM, fans will love to cheer him. If he's OFH the debates will live on. Unless JKR does something like, "yeah, that Prank never really happened, Snape and James clashed only that one time you saw, the fighting couple were child!Snape's next door neighbors, when Harry said he *hated* Snape he only meant it in the most lukewarm way possible, oh, and Trelawny was totally wrong about Snape being the eavesdropper," Snape's interest as a character will remain. Just as Sirius's has. > >>Nora: > I think I do repeat myself when I say that to me, the last two > books have not had the same kind of mystery structure (although > there are elements in common) as the first four. We've already > gotten hints that book 7 is going to be even more radical in > breaking open the format, with a potential shift into fantasy > quest mode. Is now the time that I should say I think reading the > books as mysteries is also typically overemphasized? :) Betsy Hp: The books aren't true mysteries, I agree. I'm not totally up on the rules of the mystery genre, but I belive one of the rules is that the author must provide the readers all the clues needed to solve the mystery. (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. ) I don't think JKR does so. There are usually enough hints given so that the final reveal makes sense, but not enough to put the books into a true who-dun-it catagory. However, JKR *does* throw in twists (some better than others). And yes, she does so in each book. She can choose to not do so in the last book, but I'll be quite surprised if she doesn't. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Yes, trying to protect your mother's life is *so* not good. > > > >>Nora: > I said The Good, not good. :) Betsy Hp: And I covered that in the part you snipped. To repeat, I've not really seen JKR setting up any character (or any house, for that matter) as an example of The Good. Even Dumbledore slips and stumbles at times. That's more CS Lewis's line. > >>Nora: > Probably only if Draco is genuinely sorry for the wrongs that he's > done, as opposed to mainly being upset that things didn't work out > for him like he would have wanted them to. Betsy Hp: He *is* waiting in the wings than. > >>Nora: > That would be a quantum leap in his character, to get over his > self-centeredness (and yes, that does include his elevation of his > blood kin as more deserving of consideration than many others), so > we can't rule it out. Betsy Hp: The idea of leaving your family to die being an example of selfless good is exactly the kind of backwords thinking that threw me out of the last Star Wars movie. Voldemort was certainly willing to sacrifice his family. We're setting him up as an example of "The Good" now? > -Nora wouldn't mind, now that we mention Schadenfreude, Draco kicking it just to further frustrate hordes of shippers... Betsy Hp: Heh. You've not noticed the Sirius fans at all then, have you? Betsy Hp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 14 21:47:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:47:42 -0000 Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: SSSusan: > I think this is just *such* an important point. I have argued since > early on post-HBP that there is possibly a difference between cold- > blooded murder and a class of what I would call "lesser killings," > which would include accidental deaths, acting upon a superior > officer's command during wartime, and perhaps mercy killings. I am > not convinced that the acts of "lesser killings" would result in a > ripped soul. Geoff: I think you are quite right here. My dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another". And that is the crux of the matter. Murder is committed by someone with the aim and intent of doing away with someone else. Accidental deaths - which under UK law usually count as manslaughter - and deaths in battle fall outside this category. Voldemort also seems to delight in gratuitous murder either by himself or his minions. It is not just people who are in his way in terms of his pursuit of power but as a demonstration of what he sees as his untouchability and invincibility, such as the killing of Muggles in the bridge collapse. I believe this is where the soul-tearing occurs - where any consideration of conscience is ignored in the wish to wield power or pain for their own delight. From ragingjess at hotmail.com Fri Oct 14 21:49:30 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (Jessica Bathurst) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:49:30 -0400 Subject: JKRs recipe for a fandom hero (was: Twist JKR?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141614 Ha! Neri, fantastic list! I'd add two more: 3a. Make the character's nastiness of the articulate and witty variety, so it will seem both more intelligent and less offensive. Do not, in any case, make the character seem pedantic or just garden-variety mean (c.f. Umbridge and Filch). 16b. If possible, dress the character in black and have him spend most of his time in some sort of underground lair. This will somehow make him seem hopelessly romantic, even if he is described as being ugly as my grandmother's backside. With apologies to my grandmother, Jessica ----Original Message Follows---- From: "nkafkafi" Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKRs recipe for a fandom hero (was: Twist JKR?) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:10:35 -0000 Nora wrote: > Neri wrote the bestest ever description of Snape and how JKR has > constructed him once, which I think he should repost or link to. > *nudge nudge* Neri : Why, thank you. I think you meant this one, which was originally posted in another forum some time ago and wasn't easy to locate. Keep in mind it's pre-HBP. I'll add a few post-HBP updates in the bottom. ******************************************************** I think that with Snape, JKR hit on the perfect recipe for a fandom hero. She did it in part unintentionally, I suspect, but still, this is the mark of true genius. The recipe, as far as I can make it, is: 1. Don't make this character the main hero of the story (it would clash with 5). 2. But OTOH, don't make him an evil overlord, unless there's someone or something more evil than him. 3. Make him as nasty as it's possible to be without being downright repulsive. 4. Make the main hero a nice good-doer, so he'll be a bit dull by comparison. 5. Reveal as little as possible about the character's past and motives. 6. The little you do reveal, make as controversial and inconsistent as possible. 7. Make this character involved in as many critical plot turns as possible. 8. Balance the amount of good he does precisely with the amount of bad he does (warning: any deviation from an exact balance will ruin the effect). 9. Hint that he possibly did some Very Bad Things, but don't give any details. 10. Also hint that he possibly saved the day, but again don't give any details. 11. Plant suggestions that he might be playing a part, but do not repeat DO NOT supply any real proof that he indeed does so. 12. Make him the nemesis of the good hero. The more conflict between them the better. 13. But OTOH, make him save the good hero's butt once or twice. 14. However, underplay 13 and make it appear as if he only did it for is own good. 15. Add plenty of diabolic characteristics, but nothing concrete. 16. Do not repeat DO NOT make him involved in ANY romantic relationships (the fans will take care of that). 17. Plant clues that he was badly abused in his childhood and/or youth. 18. However, while you're on 17, never make him appear nice or innocent himself. 19. Make several good characters trash him repeatedly. 20. However, add one reason, irrational as possible, why we should trust him, and play it again and again against all logic. ***************************************************** In light of HBP, it seems that two corrections for this recipe are due: 8a. After this character has already attained the indisputable status of a fandom hero, it is no longer necessary to maintain the exact balance between the amount of good and bad that he does. On the contrary, at this stage it is best to make him do as much bad as possible. It will make the fans work harder explaining why it's not REALLY bad. 11a. If it's absolutely necessary to admit that this character indeed plays a part, make him play two contradicting parts, and do not supply any proof which of them is acting and which is sincere, or if they're both acting. I'd also add one new item: 21. If a nickname for this character is required by the plot, take care to choose one that is self-contradicting. Neri From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 22:00:09 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:00:09 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Weirdly enough, I see my understanding of Snape's character as > being quite direct. YMMV, of course. I point you over to Neri's post. It does require at least some level of explanation to get around the whole killing the mentor thing: the more direct answer (in brute and unaesthetic terms of simply calculating 'how much extra explanation does this take?') is that there are no mitigating circumstances. > Betsy Hp: > Leaving Ron as a more complex character, IOW? Ron is already a more complex character. He has considerably more page time, we spend time with him, we get him deliberating about things, developing as a character. These are things that we have, not things that we have to imagine or think are implied (for some very loose uses of the word 'implied'.) He's dynamic. Ron is a character who's active in the present, while we're still hung up on Snape's past as the key to his present. > Snape's interest as a character will remain. Just as Sirius's has. Sirius' interest has diminished considerably since he died, for most posters. I know of at least one one-time prominent poster who has mostly lost interest in *canon* (which is what I was thinking of: the life of fanon is of peripheral interest to this list) because he's gone. For those fans who actually care about hewing to the canon line, there will likely be a good number disappointed at the pathways cut off and the explanations given. I think of, slightly tangential but related, the whinging that Snape's whole "I am HBP, yo!" thing at the end of the book was OOC. It makes me wonder how people knew Snapeykins so *well* to declare that. > Betsy Hp: > And I covered that in the part you snipped. To repeat, I've not > really seen JKR setting up any character (or any house, for that > matter) as an example of The Good. Even Dumbledore slips and > stumbles at times. That's more CS Lewis's line. Any character in and of himself, no--but that doesn't invalidate The Good as a lurking background concept. Mercifully she's not taking the Lewis approach, but there do seem to be moral absolutes which exist in the morality of the Potterverse. Those things are independent of their imperfect realization in the human characters. > Betsy Hp: > The idea of leaving your family to die being an example of selfless > good is exactly the kind of backwords thinking that threw me out of > the last Star Wars movie. Voldemort was certainly willing to > sacrifice his family. We're setting him up as an example of "The > Good" now? Voldemort was willing to do it to further his own ends, which are evil and not nice. Dumbledore admits that he made mistakes precisely because he held Harry in and of himself as more important than abstract people whom he didn't know personally. As well, law of the excluded middle comes in here, too--although that leaves us with far too many hypothetics for my taste. It's a classical ethical situation to grapple with, and pops up in any number of foundational texts. > > -Nora wouldn't mind, now that we mention Schadenfreude, Draco > kicking it just to further frustrate hordes of shippers... > > Betsy Hp: > Heh. You've not noticed the Sirius fans at all then, have you? I rather think that I have. There's been some very, very entertaining wailing this time around about him and Lupin, including charming statements about how Lupin is a vile filthy creature now that he's not totally gay. But dead!Draco would produce the kind of flailing, weeping and especially the moralistic lamenting (JKR is mean to kill him off!!!) which is particularly fascinating to watch. -Nora thinks that high above the Bay in Switzerland is where it's at From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 22:12:53 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:12:53 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141616 > Goddlefrood: > Any we have met, other than Bagman? Carol: No, but we hadn't met the Carrows, Gibbon, or Yaxley, either. I admit that I'm curious as to who the blond Death Eater is, but I've already explained why I don't think it's Bagman. And I would hope that being large and blond isn't grounds for arrest in the WW, corrupt though the justice system clearly is. > Goddlefrood: > Sturgis is, as I recall from The Advanced Guard in OotP described as > quite small. Carol: Sturgis is described as "a square-jawed wizard with thick straw-colored hair" (49). Later IIRC Ron describes him memorably as looking like his head has been thatched. Nothing about his size. Admittedly, he's a long shot for the BBDE, but I still want to know why we haven't heard from him since his release from prison. (As for "quite small," you may be thinking of Dedalus Diggle, who is elsewhere described as tiny.) > Carol earlier: > > Snape knows exactly at what point Voldemort summons the DEs to the > > graveyard. So does Karkaroff, who runs away at exactly that point. > Goddlefrood: > Do they indeed? Snape shows his arm to Fudge later, but the point at > which the DEs are summoned is not, to my recollection, stated. Carol: When Voldemort touches Wormtails's Dark Mark, he says that they will all feel it and know that they've been summoned. I included a partial quote in my previous post, but you snipped it, so here it is again in slightly more detail: "He pressed his long white finger to the brand on Wormtail's arm. . . . Wormtail let out a fresh howl; Voldemort removed his fingers from Wormtail's mark, and Harry saw that it had turned jet black. A look of cruel satisfaction on his face, Voldemort . . . stared around at the dark graveyard. "How many will be brave enough to return when they feel it? . . ." (GoF Am. ed. 645). So clearly both Snape and Karkaroff would know the exact point when they were summoned: the moment they felt pain like Wormtail's as their own Dark Marks presumably burned black. And Snape later says, ". . . When he touched the Dark Mark of any Death Eater, were were to Disapparate, and Apparate, instantly to his side. . . . Why do you think Karkaroff fled tonight? We both felt the mark burn. . . ." (710, with more on Karkaroff's reasons for fleeing and not a word about Bagman or about the risk Snape himself has taken by remaining away). > Carol: > > Not all bad? He unquestionably sets fire to Hagrid's house (602) > > and he apparently Crucios Harry (603). > > Goddlefrood: > It is either Amycus or Alecto who Crucios Harry. > Carol: I think the wording is more ambiguous (unlike the the part about the fire, which is clearly the BBDE's doing): "'Now *come*!' [Snape] shouted at the huge Death Eater behind Harry. 'It is time to be gone, before the Ministry turns up--' "'Impedi--!' "But before he could finish this jinx, excruciating pain hit Harry. "'No!' roared Snape's voice. . . . "Have you forgotten our orders? We are to leave him. . . . Go! Go!" "And Harry felt the ground shudder as the brother and sister and the enormous Death Eater obeyed" (603). So while all three DEs are mentioned after the Crucio, only the huge one is mentioned at the beginning of the scene. (BTW, Bagman is rather large, but he has never been described as "huge.") The brother and sister had tripped over each other as the result of Harry's Impedimenta and had to catch up. The big DE has been on the secene without them for two pages, fighting Hagrid and setting fire to his house. The reference to Amycus and Alecto when Snape orders them to leave is the first since they tripped over each other. Godfroodle: > Chin Chin Carol: Fijian for "Cheers"? Carol, who found the goblin's name (Ragnok) when she wasn't looking for it (OoP Am. ed. 85) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 23:01:27 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:01:27 -0000 Subject: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141617 Nora wrote: > There are, natch, many different categories of payoff. You have to > leave open the possibility that she's been laughing at how we've > contorted ourselves to explain Snapeykins, while the reality is > something far more direct. The reality is certainly something that > she knows, and likes to drop little hints to us about how she knows > it and we don't. In fact, I'd argue that directness is precisely > what we've conditioned ourselves *not* to expect, to such a degree > that the direct would be maximally BANG-y. > Carol responds: I'm curious, Nora, and please don't think I'm being rude because that certainly isn't my intention. Exactly what is this plain truth about Snape that you think requires no explanation? I can see how it would involve a genuinely dead Dumbledore (which I agree on), a real AK (which I think is at least debateable as it doesn't resemble any other AK's we've seen), and no Legilimency (again, I think there's evidence enough throughout the book to at least justify raising the question). But what, exactly, is self-evident from your perspective? That Snape is on Voldemort's side? That he's acting solely to save himself and saves Draco only because of the UV? That he gets the DEs off the tower and out of Hogwarts because. . . ? That he stops the Crucio of Harry and tells him not to cast Unforgiveable Curses because . . .? He took the UV because . . .? He was/was not bluffing when he told Narcissa that he knew what Draco's task was? The argument in the forest (which surely would not have been mentioned if it weren't important) was about . . . ? And how about Harry's hatred of Snape as it relates to his success in defeating Voldemort? Surely that, at least, requires some sort of resolution? I really see very little that's self-evident here, whether or not we're seeing from Harry's point of view, and a whole lot of unanswered Snape-related questions. Usually we have a crime or mystery first and then the red herrings and evidence, which we have to sort out (and I admit to having been quite wrong or thoroughly tricked in PoA and GoF). This time around we're dealing with conflicting evidence regarding Snape for six whole books and then what seems like a straightforward crime committed by him against his trusting mentor--until we consider the evidence we've already been presented with in HBP and elsewhere. What a waste of JKR's time and effort if all that evidence (a few scenes per book, but what memorable ones!) is all for nothing. And what a disappointment for readers on either end of the Snape spectrum if this "gift of a character" is nothing but a cardboard villain. Carol, hoping you'll understand that I'm genuinely confused here because I see no "direct," straightforward reading of Snape in HBP or anywhere else From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 23:17:46 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:17:46 -0000 Subject: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > > I'm curious, Nora, and please don't think I'm being rude because > that certainly isn't my intention. Exactly what is this plain truth > about Snape that you think requires no explanation? I don't think there's anything that requires *no* explanation, but I do think that there are things which require *less* explanation, and I'm inclined to priviledge them (at the present, and this is subject to change). This involves, as a methodological principle, the issue that what we think is mysterious--such as your questioning of whether it was actually an AK or not--may well not be mysterious. If we want to argue for 'directness', then we are in fact obliged to take a minimizing approach to the assumptions of mystery. So in this general approach, it is pretty self-evident that Snape killed Dumbledore, because it requires the construction of a considerable edifice of assumptions to argue that oh, the AK here is exceptional, and there could have been some communication, etc. This still leaves open any number of possibilities as to *why*, where the same conditions I'm objecting to don't obtain in the same way. Think of all the little details which theories of the past hinged upon, and which took us nowhere. Yes, some of the little things and some of the discrepancies are meaningful--and most of them are not. > What a waste of JKR's time and effort if all that evidence (a few > scenes per book, but what memorable ones!) is all for nothing. You think it's all for nothing if Snape actually did turn on and kill Dumbledore? I have to disagree, because it generates/d a great deal of interest in the reading. The process of reading through something and the conclusions which we come to/the solutions and resolutions ultimately offered as concrete fact, they're not the same thing. > And what a disappointment for readers on either end of the Snape > spectrum if this "gift of a character" is nothing but a cardboard > villain. I don't see how what I pointed towards would make him into a cardboard villain, just not the massively complex character of profound central importance who the fans want him to be. JKR is a very plot-oriented author, and Snape has been/is of great use to her in causing things to happen, as well as in establishing atmosphere. But he doesn't have the kind of page time or depth lavished upon him as her genuine hero Harry does. > Carol, hoping you'll understand that I'm genuinely confused here > because I see no "direct," straightforward reading of Snape in HBP > or anywhere else It's a matter of degree, of course. I make absolutely no claims to certainty, and I'm as likely as anyone to be wrong. But I'm playing with an approach that I think has a number of strengths, including a superior claim to directness. YMMV on whether that's a virtue, in the case of this series, or not. -Nora notes, alas, that 'interesting' and 'accurate' have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and what we want is often not what we get From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 23:39:59 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:39:59 -0000 Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141619 > Geoff: Murder is committed by someone with > the aim and intent of doing away with someone else. Accidental > deaths - which under UK law usually count as manslaughter - and > deaths in battle fall outside this category. > a_svirn: And how would you describe killing on a battlefield? I'd say the intent is exactly the same ? "doing away with someone else". From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 00:26:39 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:26:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? ( LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141620 Valky: > But there is another matter of Non Verbal spells, which I think OTOH > *is* forshadowed as something Harry can use effectively. When he > gets the Stone out of the mirror, he is saying nothing, and yet he > makes it happen effortlessly. So on the matter of the Non-verbal > magic, I think Harry *is* going to apply himself to it, and I am > fairly certain he won't find it all that hard, I think it will come > to him a bit like apparating did. Geoff: I'm not sure I would agree with you that this is Harry performing non- verbal or wandless magic. Valky: That's Okay Geoff, I agree with you. In my post I was referring to that scene of Harry retrieving the stone as more of an _abstract_ foreshadowing of the powers Harry will possess when he confronts Voldemort, not a literal one, but thanks for your analysis of the scene. :D Geoff: Now it is probable that the Hat and the Mirror are accepted as being trustworthy by a long history of reliability but it seems that the Mirror, like the Hat, has the ability to think for itself as it seemingly possesses the power to read a viewer's mind and determine their deepest wishes. So, coupling this power with the fact that Dumbledore has "programmed" how someone can get hold of the Stone, I believe that when Harry was thinking about the need to get hold of the Stone to keep it away from Quirrell, these two factors came into play Valky: Oooh! I hope you don't mind, I might use that as another model of abstract foreshadowing too! I think your analysis of Dumbledore's stone plan gives us a very good insight into aspects of Dumbledore's greater plan. Like for example, notice that what Arthur and Molly have told Ginny about objects that think for themselves has a distinct parrallel with what Dumbledore tells Harry about sentient horcruxes. Paraphrasing- Arthur and Molly to Ginny: Haven't we told you to never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain. Paraphrasing Dumbledore in HBP on Nagini: It's very risky to confide part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself. Both speak of trust and confidence in something that has obvious sentient qualities, and both are saying there is great risk involved in doing so. Then through the analyisis that Geoff gave (thanks!) we can see to some degree with the mirror that Dumbledore has successfully tapped into the sentient qualities of the mirror, to protect the stone. And his plan works, the stone is kept by the mirror and kept well, it cannot be *used*, Dumbledore need not be there to protect it, DD was quite proud of this plan. Now to speculate on the abstract sense of this plan as it relates to Dumbledore's greater plan- It sems to say that Dumbledore has long known he was capable of tapping into the protector of Voldemorts ultimate immortality. Hence it foreshadows his ability to sense Voldemorts magic in the cave and in the Gaunt property. And it also foreshadows a possible view of Harry. It is Harry's reflection in the Mirror and it is Harry that ultimately becomes the protector of the immortality that Voldemort seeks. Yes it's a path that leads to Horcrux Harry, but I don't view that as a bad thing at this point, because rather than just having, yet again, 'oh yeah, Horcrux Harry :-S' we also have, with it, a model of Dumbledores plan. With the mirror, Dumbledore's plan was to give the mirror the stone with a simple and unmanipulable condition. It is never to be removed by someone whose intention is to use it, IOW the stone is no longer a means of immortality, its very nature works against it ever being used that way again. But it *can* be found if the Hearts Desire of someone is simply to find an object that they are in no way attached to, then that person can have it. More specifically, the Mirror trial demonstrates, as I am sure Dumbledore/JKR intended it to, that Harry himself, if he has no interest in immortality or the riches that go with the prize, if his hearts desire is to thwart evil, then he will see quite clearly his advantage over Voldemort. Then he can use his own power and his own courage, and the magnificent love that he possesses as a gift of sacrifice to hold on to that advantage as tightly as he can until Evil destroys itself trying to get it from him. I would love to try and extrpolate more specifics out of these thoughts, but recalling the long conversation between Saraquel, Jen, Cerridwen and myself recently, well... I know what I am in for if I do :D The final confrontation is a hard nut to crack. Valky From ryokas at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 01:07:33 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (Miikka R.) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:07:33 -0000 Subject: Fleshing out the Wizarding World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141621 I've done it again and had a compulsive inspiration. When I think I can do the concept justice (translation: Watch this space in 2012) I'll be writing a fanfic about a post-Voldemort movement against the Statute of Secrecy. Yes - the Muggle Liberation Front is here. The potential fic will examine the dynamics of the wizarding world in detail. The problem is that we don't *have* much detail. I'll be doing a lot of geofiction. These questions come to mind at present, I'd be thankful for ideas and perspectives on any of them and some might even be interesting: 1) How do wizards and witches stay fit? Magic appears to drastically reduce the amount of physical labour. At least the kids in Hogwarts walk and run all over the place. 2) If a Muggle child gets bitten by a werewolf during the second wizarding war, is there any feasible course of action that doesn't involve skilled Obliviators and a silver dagger? 3) How much would the wizarding outlook on human rights differ? Muggles are largely considered an inferior race and their deaths, should they encounter a Statute-protected species, are covered up. House-elves are sapients kept in (admittedly willing) slavery; Slughorn had them test for poison. 4) Might any other paramilitary organisations form in the current conflict, aside from the Order of the Phoenix? 5) Given the wizard infiltration of Muggle governments, was there ever a significant risk of nuclear war? 6) Religion is ignored by the books. Is there good evidence against the usual low-grade Anglican Christianity, in this case rather different to its attitudes to magic? (This is irrelevant, but I felt quite uncomfortable when Dumbledore lit a burning yet unconsuming fire.) 7) How voluntary is the enrollment of Muggle-borns into Hogwarts? 8) Given that magic causes interference with electricity and wizards very seldomly are at home with machinery, yet Shacklebolt was able to hold a position in high Muggle government, could the Internet provide a safe way for Muggle communication about the WW? X) Is it okay to steal an idea and use it as a detail? Should I include a note saying that it came from someone whom I can best thank by not mentioning his name? - Kizor From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 01:41:28 2005 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:41:28 -0000 Subject: Harry and wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141622 In the thread of performing magic without a wand I haven't seen anyone mention Harry doing it. But he has. As far back as before he even learned he was a wizard, Harry performed wandless magic several times (zoo, hair, jumping the roof etc. etc.) - so he's skilled to do so. Maybe he simply needs to practice and concentrate more ... Inge From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 01:45:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:45:50 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141623 Steve (bboyminn) wrote: > I think this whole Unbreakable Vow 'thing' is way overrated. I think unless you construct and word the Vow with iron-clad certainty and precision, it is pretty much worthless. > Notice Snape physical reaction to the third part of the Vow. I think he is very confident about the first two, and the first two are afteral what he originally agreed to, but the third is obviously straying into territory that Snape hasn't planned on. Unfortunately he is committed, and it will look very bad if he backs out now. > > The first problem is that we are assuming Snape knows what the Deed is and that he knows it in it's entirety. If Snape only knows about the Vanishing Cabinet when he takes the Vow, is he then absolved of the 'killing Dumbledore' deed? And, most importantly, if it hinges on what Snape knows about the Deed, if he knows nothing, is he then inturn bound to nothing? And if he is bound to nothing, then reasonably, the Vow means nothing. This really does beg the question, can you make an Unknown Unbreakable Vow, can you vow to something while at the same time having no idea what that 'something' is? > > Further, let's say that Snape is bound to Draco's final and greatest > task; although I seriously doubt it. No time frame is specified. There is nothing in the Vow that says that the instant Draco refuses, Snape must step forward or die. > As far as the on-going enforcement of the Vow. The third section is > fulfilled, and the first two only involve 'trying', he isn't required to suceed, so I don't see the Vow as being effectively inforce any longer. > > Overal, I see the whole Unbreakable Vow process riddled with > loopholes, and these specific Vows are certainly vague and uncertain. Carol responds: This is not an explanation or an answer to your post, of course, but for plot reasons the vow has to be vague. The reader can't know (yet) exactly what's required of Draco or how much Snape knows. Is he bluffing or not? Why does he agree to the vow? Can he "slither" out of it? Etc. I don't think anyone has argued that "the deed" Narcissa wants Snape to help Draco with and that she's afraid he'll fail to accomplish is fixing the vanishing cabinet. That's only the means to an end. It's also the specific piece of information that Snape tries to get from Draco and fails to discover because of Draco's obvious attempt at Occlumency. (He can block the thought from view but can't disguise the Occlumency as Snape can.) "The deed" is almost certainly killing Dumbledore. Or at least that seems to be Snape's interpretation as he sizes up the situation and makes his decision on the tower. And he certainly takes his responsibility for protecting Draco seriously, whether because of the vow or for more altruistic reasons is unclear. I personally think that the vow is so conspicuously placed because it controls the action of the tower scene and places Snape in a trap of his own making. And the hand twitch seems to indicate that Snape senses exactly that. However, I'm not arguing with you, just stating my own views, which happen to conflict with yours. What I'd like to know is what you make of Snape's decisions on the tower. If the vow isn't binding, why bother to rush upstairs? Why not just reveal his loyalties and fight with the Order or the Death Eaters if he's not going to drop dead for failing to keep the vow? And why kill Dumbledore at all? Why not let someone else take the fall if he's not bound by an oath to do it? It makes no sense to me that he would murder Dumbledore for no reason, after having saved his life earlier in the year. He certainly doesn't gloat, as you've pointed out in previous posts, he saves Draco, and he gets the DEs out of Hogwarts. (Again, I know you've made these same points in earlier posts.) So how do you reconcile the evil action of an unnecessary murder with the selfless (or DDM!) action of saving Draco and getting the DEs away from Harry and the school? I don't see how Snape's actions can be explained without the vow shaping them, or how the killing of Dumbledore can in any way be justified unless the vow forced his hand and he was faced with the choices already discussed: kill a dying Dumbledore and save Draco, Harry, and others; or die himself and save no one. And to throw in a point from an unrelated thread, you were talking about shortcuts to the Horcruxes. I think Harry will go to the ROR to retrieve the HBP's Potions book, find the Mirror of Erised there, and see his heart's desire, the location of that mysterious Ravenclaw Horcrux, which will turn out to be the tiara he used to mark the location of the Potions book. Shortcut enough for you? Or just cheating? Carol, hoping she hasn't ruined her post by adding unrelated material From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Oct 15 01:50:13 2005 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:50:13 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: <1f3.14343bd7.308135a2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at a... wrote: > > > In a message dated 10/13/2005 1:59:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > willsonkmom at m... writes: > > I can't come up with the canon but I think Snape has also performed > wandless magic, and so has Lupin. (Lupin would have been in PoA, with a > flame.) > > > > ---------------------------- > > Sherrie here: > > I don't have the book with me, but it was on the train - he conjures up a > glowing fire in his hand. I'm also a fan of the Deryni books, so I thought at > once, "Oh! Handfire!" That's the last we've heard of such a talent, though. > > Sherrie > I've often wondered why everybody insists on using a wand instead of their index finger. (Or even their middle finger, in certain contexts.) I suppose it's useful to the author to equip Our Hero with an implement of which he can be deprived with a timely hex, but it does seem awfully clumsy and one has to lug the darned thing around with one, and it ties up one's hand, and it's always in your pocket when you heed it, and people keep dropping them...Well, you see what I mean. I read somewhere, perhaps on this list, a suggestion to the inept that they attach their wand to their wrist with a length of elastic. Sounded sensible to me. Gatta From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 01:39:13 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (Michell Thitathan) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051015013913.79388.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141625 > Geoff: Murder is committed by someone with > the aim and intent of doing away with someone else. Accidental > deaths - which under UK law usually count as manslaughter - and > deaths in battle fall outside this category. > >a_svirn: >And how would you describe killing on a battlefield? I'd say the >intent is exactly the same ? "doing away with someone else". CH3ed: I'd say the difference is in the context. In a state of war you are operating on the mutual assumption that if you don't kill the other side first, they will kill you. I think in the battlefield, unless the other side's soldier has given himself up and is disarmed and taken into custody as prisoner of war, you can safely label killing him self-defense. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 01:36:31 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:36:31 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Hunting - Time, Skill, Knowledge, and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141626 bboyminn: I know you are just speculating on the possibilities but what I hear you saying is like asking why didn't Dumbledore give Harry the winning lottery numbers. I mean it can't be that hard, we all know the numbers will be between 1 and 50 (or whatever). Valky: That's fair, must mean that I am saying it all wrong Okay, first is to just express that I don't mean to ask why DD didn't give Harry the winning numbers. What I mean to say is DD obviously isn't hedging the bets here in terms of locating Horcruxes, because the bulk of his lessons included generally imparting the information that he himself was 'using up', so to speak. Now, IMO there are no more memories, Dumbledore gave Harry everything he had. But on a slightly dislocated level, I think, there is a method to it some of it probably rooted in the characterisation of DD and the rest otherwise rooted in tight plotting of a deliberately laid puzzle. The memories are disjointed but span a selectly usable sample of the whole, this is the exact nature of a logic puzzle *exactly* the same type as the Potions puzzle under the trapdoor. So I am saying that Dumbledore wasn't splitting the task down the middle between himself and Harry (as in you pick these lotto numbers, I'll pick those), he was reciting the lines of the logic problem. It's very recognisable if you are into that kind of thing, I don't know about others, but Logic Puzzles are my best game Has anyone else here gotten those Logic puzzle books with the process of elimination grids printed for you, and just done one after the other after the other, like me.. ? ( no probably not many you geeky weird girl Valky :-| ) well anyway. The Pensieve memories are the same way. They are like a list of facts that you use to eliminate down the various aspects of each horcrux. bboyminn: It's easy to say a Death Eater has /it/ or that /it/ is in London, but that doesn't really matter because the hard part is for Harry to DISCOVER which Death Eater has it and WHERE in London it is located. And that discovery process completely ignores the knowledge need to overcome the protections. So, it could be in London, but for all Harry knows it could be in Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Amsterdam, or anyone of a hundred other cities. Saying it's in London is easy, but Harry discovering that is hard. Valky: That is why a cross reference grid comes in useful in a puzzle that is like this one. To be frank, I know that you, personally have already been involved in the threads that eliminated the Unknown Horcrux down to a Ravenclaw Wand/Baton. So the trick in Logic puzzles is to cross reference that back to another grid where you've eliminated all but one alternative. Harry is lucky in that respect since he has Hermione on his side, it won't take her long to extrapolate an answer for him out of a few facts like the ones we've been given. And the good thing about Horcrux destruction is that it *is* just like a Logic puzzle in that when you find one and destroy it you can cross out a whole section of your referencing which eliminates you down even closer to the rest of the answers. I can't say for sure that my conclusions are accurate, of course. My method has been a tad bit haphazard, and for us it is left to sort the genuine clues from the false ones. For example, as I percieve it, the fact that Dumbledore did not locate the Hufflepuff Horcrux using his extensive resources and given the amount of time he had to locate it, is a clue to the nature of it's location, I don't think that I am wrong, but it's still perfectly likely that I am. Of course nobody really has to look at this the same way as me, it's just the way I am looking at it. I see it all as a fulfillment of the promise of the first book that the sixth book will come complete with a logic puzzle where you need to identify and locate seven things, and so finally little geeks like me come into their own bboyminn: The PROCESS of reaching those outcomes is the hard part; that's what takes up all the time. Find a Horcrux in London is easy once you've gone through the long impossible task of /discovering/ that it is in London. Valky: Well this is what I mean by saying that Dumbledore/JKR is also counting on what Harry knows and has at his disposal, as well as what he has learned from Dumbledore in HBP. This is the point of the logic puzzle foreshadowing, I think. In that scene under the trapdoor, Harry and Hermione don't have the option of looking at it as a long impossible task, its actually in the lines of Snapes 8*2 stanzas isn't it? They cannot use trial and error because there is a good enough chance that they'll be poisoned before they get the right one, and they can't go out and gather additional information because they've passed the threshold, so it's drink up or stay there, but *all* the information they need to get through safely is right in front of them. So it seems while some of us are afraid there's not enough time for Jo to introduce the needed information, I think she has already unambiguously told us that the information needed to move on *is* all introduced already. And it only takes for some clever crossreferencing logic by Hermione (coupled with Ron using his unique talents where Hermione points him) and the next you know Harry is standing at the doorway of a Horcrux location. IOW, I think we *are* told by JKR's foreshadowings, and by Dumbledore in the Horcrux chapter that this really won't take all that long, actually. bboyminn: In a way, that's what scares me about the final book. JKR has set up what seems to be an insurmountable task for Harry. In addition to this insurmountable task, there are MANY unresolved plot issues. Many plot issue that MUST be resolved, and many more that I WANT resolved. So, I see a task that is not only insuperable* for the characters, but for the author too. Valky: Well yeah, its definitely insuperable for Harry. But on a reread I was reminded to my delight that he has told Hermione the last line of the prophecy, add that to the fact that Harry has been describing in detail all the things he's seen over the year in Dumbledore's lessons to her and that she has already looked for RAB and eliminated a huge section of the search area there, it is fair to say that Hermione has already been working quietly on this stuff for six months, and we can deduct that from the time required to locate the horcruxes in book seven or thereabouts, right? Valky Who thinks Carol would also be delighted of the heads up that Hermione is seen poring over Advanced Rune Translation shortly after Harry tells her the last line of the prophecy From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 02:27:33 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:27:33 -0000 Subject: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141627 > Nora replies to Carol: > This involves, as a methodological principle, the issue that what we > think is mysterious--such as your questioning of whether it was > actually an AK or not--may well not be mysterious. If we want to > argue for 'directness', then we are in fact obliged to take a > minimizing approach to the assumptions of mystery. > > So in this general approach, it is pretty self-evident that Snape > killed Dumbledore, because it requires the construction of a > considerable edifice of assumptions to argue that oh, the AK here is > exceptional Valky: Oh Nora, I can't let that one slide by, sorry. The questionableness of the Avada Kedavra on the tower *is* minimizing the approach to assumptions. Consider what assumptions need to be made to *believe* that it was an successful Killing curse. There's your edifice! You have to assume Dumbledore was tricked by Snape first and is it a huge assumption to say Dumbledore was fooled for 16 years and ultimately betrayed despite repeated warnings from so many trusted allies? Yes it is. I see that you are saying, it's not a mystery, it is what it looked like and then all assumptions are minimised. But they aren't minimised by that at all. At the very least the assumption that Dumbledore was every bit the old fool for Snape *must* be explained. All sorts of double backflips are then required and that's a fact, right? If you skip this assumption you can go to some simpler facts and minimise the mystery, but if you make this assumption then you have a *lot* of backflipping and explaining to do. Here I'll start you off with a double quadruple one. Snape killed Dumbledore so then explain how Dumbledore died peacefully, with his peace shattered and the boy he was protecting, the hope of the whole wizard world, left alone and unprepared at the top of the tower with his betrayer. Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 02:40:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:40:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? / WILL and WON'T (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141628 > Jen: Oh Alla, I would love to feel your certainty about *something* > in Potterverse. My only rock-solid prediction for Book 7 is > Voldemort will finally, and for all time, be vanquished ;). Alla: Snort. Well, I do agree with this one, definitely. :-) As to others, I am sure I will make my recipe for nice tasty crow even better by the time book 7 comes out, in case me being sure will not play out as I am thinking it will . :-) Seriously though, I am not sure of course as to how it will play out plot wise in details, BUT I am sure in the general principla - that Harry's heart and his friends love for him will play key role in defeating Voldemort, NOT Harry's learning how to close his mind. Control his emotions? Maybe. But not giving them up and I want to stress here - BOTH negative and positive. Just me of course. Jen: > Cause see, you're swaying me here. Maybe in the case above and the > case where Dumbledore is dismissive with Harry about Snape-as- > eavesdropper, maybe both were examples of him forgetting the fiery, > idealistic passion of youth, and how important things are in the > moment. Hell, sometimes I forget and I'm only 38. Alla: Heee. Thanks! Sometimes I feel being swayed by the argument when I am reading it and then when I am thinking about it next day, I am going back to my old POV again. :-0 > Jen: I know you don't think much about that speech in OOTP, but I've > always loved it and never believed Dumbledore made a mistake. Since > we know Harry's power saves him from temptation by Voldemort (among > other things), I'd say Dumbledore's power was the same. A lesser man > would have given into temptation to mold Harry into a super- wizard, > the only kind of person you might think could defeat Voldemort after > hearing the prophecy, and that plan would have failed miserably. Alla: LOL! Not liking it is an understatement. :-) Mainly because what unpleasant light (IMO) it casts on Albus. I don't always agree with Lupinlore when he is arguing that JKR swept under the rug many plot lines of OOP, but I think he is right on about this speech of Dumbledore. I think JKR backed of with Dumbledore's speech in HBP, because to me the main point Dumbledore seemed to make in OOP as to Harry's situation at Dursleys was " I knew you would suffer" and the main point of his speech at Dursleys in HBP was " I trusted you to raise him like a son, but you never treated him like son" ( paraphrase). Those two points seem to be contradictory to me, BUT I am actually HAPPY that JKR backed off, because I DO like Dumbledore, I do NOT think that he is a Puppetmaster, but I think that his speech in OOP seemed to give that impression and I do not think that this was her intent at all. So, I much rather have Dumbledore who was hoping that Dursleys treat Harry as family member than the one who KNEW that they would not and left Harry with them anyway. As I said, to me JKR redeemed Albus (sort of) with his HBP speech. Right, I should stop now, because I could go on and on. :-) I am not quite sure though that I understand the context of you talking about Dumbledore resisting his temptation. Are you saying that Dumbledore was tempted to put Harry with Dursleys or not to put Harry with Dursleys , but did it anyway and this was a good thing? Or are you talking about Dumbledore's temptation outside of Dursleys context? > Jen: I misunderstood here, thought you meant Harry shouldn't try to > control his feelings somewhat. We both agree he needs to get a > handle on his hatred, that it could interfere with what he needs to > focus on. But NOT through Occlumency. I hope change will come for > him through emotional healing, brought about by the visit to > Godric's or memories of Lily. Alla: Sorry, I think I was confusing here. So, going back to starting point in this thread ( I think). I think I was arguing that IF Snape wants to teach Harry something ( which I doubt), that would be not the subtly nuanced idea of controlling one's emotions ( which could be a good idea to a degree), but repressing one's emotions, which I think would be a VERY bad idea for Harry, because we know that in large part at least his powers ARE based on emotions. I am glad we agree about Occlumency though. > Jen: Actually, true confession time. One of the few things I > predicted right for HBP was Harry wouldn't need Occlumency lessons > because his heart saved him :). That the reason Dumbledore talked > openly with Harry in the study afterward was because he had no fear > Voldemort would try to invade Harry anymore, even using the mind > link, given the power residing in Harry (well that part wasn't > exactly right). Alla: I did not predict that Harry will not need Occlumency. I was going back and forth on it, but I was pretty sure that contrary to numerous fanfic stories Harry will not be studying it with Snape. One of my correct predictions ( maybe even the only one) was Snape being the eavesdropper. Jen: > Then HBP confused me! Was it emotion that saved Harry or his *soul*? Alla: I think it is all connected somehow - his ability to Love, his Soul and his heart Jen: >Some days I think I have a handle on > these things and other days not. > Alla: LOL! Aren't we all? Sherry Gomes: > I've finally started rereading HBP. i needed to give it time to process I > guess, though I've usually reread all the other books right away. i just > wanted to say how much I enjoyed the third chapter! Harry's thought > that experience had taught him to stay out of the reach of uncle Vernon made > me think he had indeed suffered more than neglect, and I reveled in > Dumbledore telling them off in his own unique way. Alla: Yes, I have started my second reread too. I loved everything you said in this chapter, but what I enjoyed the most was the fact that JKR ( IMO of course ) unequivocally stated that Harry WAS mistreated at Dursleys, that he DID suffer neglect and cruelty, that he WAS miserable there. To make a long story short - I am glad that JKR did not try to justify Dursleys behaviour and it was a GREAT payback time, IMO. I said it previously - I would prefer no redemption for Dursleys at all, but after this chapter maybe I will be able to swallow Petunia realising that Harry IS her nephew after all, if JKR decides to travel that route. Sherry: > Anyway, I just wanted to write about something that was not related to did > or didn't Snape do something or other! Alla: LOLOL! From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 15 02:22:59 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:22:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) References: Message-ID: <00d601c5d12f$5d5aff80$5e98400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141629 >> >>Nora: >> That would be a quantum leap in his character, to get over his >> self-centeredness (and yes, that does include his elevation of his >> blood kin as more deserving of consideration than many others), so >> we can't rule it out. > > Betsy Hp: > The idea of leaving your family to die being an example of selfless > good is exactly the kind of backwords thinking that threw me out of > the last Star Wars movie. Voldemort was certainly willing to > sacrifice his family. We're setting him up as an example of "The > Good" now? Magpie: This line is a little difficult because putting the consideration of "them" over "us" isn't something many characters have been challenged on yet, and family is so important. I felt like the story of Books 6 and 7 was where this was going to be most important after HBP. Draco was pushed more in that direction than, say, Peter when his life and his family's life were threatened if he didn't take the life of someone who wasn't blood kin, and was possibly considered the enemy. He doesn't seem to yet have really figured out exactly why this was a problem for him. -m From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Oct 15 02:45:17 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:45:17 -0000 Subject: Harry and wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141630 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > In the thread of performing magic without a wand I haven't seen anyone > mention Harry doing it. But he has. As far back as before he even > learned he was a wizard, Harry performed wandless magic several times > (zoo, hair, jumping the roof etc. etc.) - so he's skilled to do so. > Maybe he simply needs to practice and concentrate more ... > > Inge > Also, in OoTP, he lights his wand, even though it's several feet away from him. (In his desparation to fight the Dementors, he mutters, "Lumos" after Dudley punches him and the wand drops.) It makes sense to me that a highly emotionally charged incident would make wandless magic happen. Desperate times... Allie From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 02:49:05 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:49:05 -0000 Subject: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > Valky: > Oh Nora, I can't let that one slide by, sorry. > > The questionableness of the Avada Kedavra on the tower *is* > minimizing the approach to assumptions. Consider what assumptions > need to be made to *believe* that it was an successful Killing > curse. We saw Snape say "Avada Kedavra". We saw a green jet of light. We saw said jet of light hit Dumbledore. You have to do far, far more work to say "It wasn't actually an AK!" than to go "Well damn, that was a killing curse." JKR was kind enough to specify the color of the light this time around, nu? You have to postulate that there is some way to fake the AK, that Snape did it, and then that the fall killed Dumbledore, or somehow the potion amazingly killed him after said fall. That ain't minimizing assumptions, I think. I know the exceptionalism argument for the AK, but I think, yet again, that's instance of trying to work around what we have. 'Exceptional' requires, IMO, a better standard of 'normative' than we have at present. I'm not saying that's always the wrong thing to do--I'm just saying that it's more work, and thus more of an assumption. Yes, it's assuming simplicity to assume that it was a genuine AK. It's less of an assumption than that it's not. > You have to assume Dumbledore was tricked by Snape first and is it > a huge assumption to say Dumbledore was fooled for 16 years and > ultimately betrayed despite repeated warnings from so many trusted > allies? Yes it is. Repeated warnings from so many trusted allies? I can think of Moody in the courtroom scene, and Harry's objections (which Dumbledore never puts to rest), but the rest of the Order seems to have been "Well, we thought Dumbledore knew what he was doing--he sure didn't share..." As well, my personal model doesn't require Dumbledore to have been fooled for 16 years, just for two or so. There *are* different options than "Snape has always been evil" and "Snape has always been loyal to Dumbledore through and through", so don't make me go get my buddy Mr. Excluded Middle. It's not terribly hard, if you take the model of Snape as someone inclined to look after his own interests, to read many of his actions in the past books in ambiguous ways. You have the objection that we have to jump over everything he's done for the good side, which is a valid objection--although Neri's loverly list points out, accurately, how little of that has been very solidly shown to us in canon. The counterargument is that *you* have to deal with all of his petty/self- centered/malicious actions, such as the on-stage killing of Dumbledore. Either approach is going to have to explain away some things. I like OFH because it requires the minimum of those subsidiary explanations--Snape is good sometimes and evil others, without exculpation for the bad and denial for the good. > Here I'll start you off with a double quadruple one. Snape killed > Dumbledore so then explain how Dumbledore died peacefully, with his > peace shattered and the boy he was protecting, the hope of the whole > wizard world, left alone and unprepared at the top of the tower with > his betrayer. Acceptance of death (which I assume you're drawing out from the facial expression) is not necessarily the same thing as dying with all your plans in order, when you wanted to. I can see Dumbledore not fighting against his own death (having the courage to go on, and not fearing death) while still dying under what were, we might say, sub-optimal circumstances. -Nora almost wishes for a website update to toss us some crumbs From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 03:25:37 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:25:37 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141632 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Weirdly enough, I see my understanding of Snape's character as > > being quite direct. YMMV, of course. > >>Nora: > I point you over to Neri's post. It does require at least some > level of explanation to get around the whole killing the mentor > thing: the more direct answer (in brute and unaesthetic terms of > simply calculating 'how much extra explanation does this take?') > is that there are no mitigating circumstances. Betsy Hp: But it does require sweeping Snape's saving Dumbledore's life at the beginning of HBP under the rug. Neither side of the debate has a lock on directness, I would say. (And I enjoyed the humor of Neri's post, but I don't see it's revelence to JKR's use of twists or the directness of Snape's character arc.) > >>Nora: > Ron is already a more complex character. He has considerably more > page time, we spend time with him, we get him deliberating about > things, developing as a character. > Betsy Hp: I think it's a bit of a strawman to get into a "who's more complex" argument (I did start it, sorry ), but I will say a lot of Ron's page time is spent doing exposition. We do see him develop and we do get insight into his character, but not every single time he comes up. And he does fall into several "loyal side-kick" stereotypes. Honestly, I think Snape and Ron are about equal as characters. I think Ron has more promise of surviving the series (so more of a future) but I don't think he beats Snape in the dynamics department. > >>Nora: > > For those fans who actually care about hewing to the canon line, > there will likely be a good number disappointed at the pathways > cut off and the explanations given. I think of, slightly > tangential but related, the whinging that Snape's whole "I am HBP, > yo!" thing at the end of the book was OOC. It makes me wonder how > people knew Snapeykins so *well* to declare that. Betsy Hp: Well, see, that's why you should trust my take on Snape. The line *was* cheesy, IMO, but I don't think it was OOC. (Snape does have a sense of drama, the love. The more emotional he gets, the more Wagnerian.) And yes, part of a series ending is the end of possibilities. Book 7 is Neville's last chance to prove himself his parents' son (for those looking for that sort of thing). It's the last chance for Ron to step out of his brother's shadow. Of course there will be controversy. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I've not really seen JKR setting up any character (or any house, > > for that matter) as an example of The Good. Even Dumbledore > > slips and stumbles at times. That's more CS Lewis's line. > >>Nora; > Any character in and of himself, no--but that doesn't invalidate > The Good as a lurking background concept. Mercifully she's not > taking the Lewis approach, but there do seem to be moral absolutes > which exist in the morality of the Potterverse. Those things are > independent of their imperfect realization in the human characters. Betsy Hp: But then it doesn't set an impossibly high standard for any character to achieve to be on the side of good. They are none of them saints, so it's unwise to be too judgmental of them. The tar brushed on one character may well paint another. > >>Nora: > > Dumbledore admits that he made mistakes precisely because he held > Harry in and of himself as more important than abstract people > whom he didn't know personally. > Betsy Hp: Dumbledore overprotected Harry (in OotP), yes. I'm not sure saying he loved him too much, or should not have cared for him, accurately hits the Potterverse morality. Actually, I think it misses it by a huge mark. To try and say that JKR is writing a morality that encourages sons to let their mothers die is an uphill battle I think. Betsy Hp, who rather likes CS Lewis and can't imagine a proper childhood without him From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 03:41:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:41:30 -0000 Subject: What kind of morality if any does JKR write? WAS: Twist JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141633 > Betsy Hp: To try and say that JKR is writing a morality that > encourages sons to let their mothers die is an uphill battle I think. Alla: Hmmm, to die - I am not sure about it and I don't remember Nora's saying it,actually. But I sure remember Sirius leaving his family, because his family was on the side of Dark and I don't remember anything in the narrative judging such action as negative. So, I would probably say that while family IS important for JKR, following the greater moral principle could be more important. Going back to Draco though, I don't think it applies to him at all, since he entered into Voldemort service, NOT knowing that his mother's life could be threatened, so going upthread, I would not call Draco anything close to being good yet till he actually DOES something good, NOT just refuses to do something bad. Which sure is an improvement over his past behaviour to me, but nowhere close to choosing the right side yet. JMO, Alla. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 03:42:39 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:42:39 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > But it does require sweeping Snape's saving Dumbledore's life at > the beginning of HBP under the rug. Neither side of the debate has > a lock on directness, I would say. (And I enjoyed the humor of > Neri's post, but I don't see it's revelence to JKR's use of twists > or the directness of Snape's character arc.) OFH provides an accounting for this event, although I know that you don't like it. OFH is really quite direct, because it's happy to let Snape take actions for both sides--it then takes an intensely skeptical approach towards his sincerity in all cases. May I introduce you to my friend, Mr. Excluded Middle? He's really quite pleasant. I hear he's been looking longingly after Faith, these days. Oh, I think Neri's post is extremely relevant, because it describes almost all the ways which fans read, and all the things which fans do, to make patterns out of the information that we're given. It points out quite well how little solid information is there, and how much of the arguments are based on what we fill in the blanks with. > Betsy Hp: > I think it's a bit of a strawman to get into a "who's more complex" > argument (I did start it, sorry ), but I will say a lot of Ron's > page time is spent doing exposition. We do see him develop and we > do get insight into his character, but not every single time he > comes up. That's still one area where we've gotten pretty much nothing out of Snape in dynamic terms. We find out that he *did* X and Y, but we have remarkably little of his doing X and Y that's not somehow predicated by past action. Most of the theories also end to postulate that he's been the same for 16 years, good or evil, and if he's haunted it's by his past determining his present actions. But then I admit I started to get a little bored with him when OotP was much of the same: half witty humor, half downgrade schoolboy class and petty commentary. > And he does fall into several "loyal side-kick" stereotypes. > Honestly, I think Snape and Ron are about equal as characters. I > think Ron has more promise of surviving the series (so more of a > future) but I don't think he beats Snape in the dynamics department. Has Snape developed over the course of six books? He started off with an intense dislike for Harry Potter, and that doesn't seem to have changed. According to your model, he changed sides for Albus Dumbledore, and has been a secretive but noble warrior for the good cause ever since. He doesn't seem to have made much progress in emotional terms, still being hung up on the past. Dynamic? I don't really see it from DDM!Snape. I do see an increasing level of resentment (per PoA), but there's just not much in canon to go on. > Betsy Hp: > Dumbledore overprotected Harry (in OotP), yes. I'm not sure saying > he loved him too much, or should not have cared for him, accurately > hits the Potterverse morality. Actually, I think it misses it by a > huge mark. To try and say that JKR is writing a morality that > encourages sons to let their mothers die is an uphill battle I > think. I wouldn't say that either. But I would say she's writing a morality where one has to consider very, very hard the consequences of self- absorption and what it can do to other people. I suppose that Draco is a notch above Peter for acting out of fear of his family and not just himself (although many a poster has postulated that Peter feared for others as well), but neither of them has a positive social morality. The morality of the Potterverse does seem very social to me, rewarding sincerity over authenticity. > Betsy Hp, who rather likes CS Lewis and can't imagine a proper > childhood without him -Nora, who leaves CS Lewis well alone because she prefers her literature without the heavy-handed religious allegory, and figured out what Aslan was very quickly From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 04:05:54 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:05:54 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141635 Apologies to the List and Elves if this appears a short version of another response by me to the thread. I posted a response several hours ago which appears to have vanished into the bowels of Yahoomort. bboyminn: > Overal, I see the whole Unbreakable Vow process riddled with > loopholes, and these specific Vows are certainly vague and uncertain. > I think fandom has made far too much of these Vows. Although, I > understand that if you accept my premise, then that doesn't really > leave us much to talk about. None the less, I see this whole > Unbreakable Vow thing as way overblown. zgirnius: I agree about the loopholes. I felt the 'seem to fail' was going to be the operative loophole. DD has a private talk with Draco and gets him into 'witness protection', so Draco never tries again, so he never seems to fail. It even seemed to be working, until the Death Eaters showed up. You could be right about the UV being overblown. But I think we are *supposed* to believe the Vow is important. The visually impressive and portentous Vow-making process (the kneeling, the hand-clasping, the fiery bands, Bella's astounded reaction) suggest to the reader that this is the Plot Device of Doom. Also, the Vow has pride of place in the book. It forms the climax of one of the very rare Harry- free chapters (and unlike Chapter 1, the only other such chapter in the book, Chapter 2 stars important recurring characters of the series.) Now, this could be JKR's way of leading us by the nose...or it could be her saying to us, 'Wake up and take notice, folks!' From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Oct 15 03:56:22 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:56:22 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141636 > Betsy Hp: > But it does require sweeping Snape's saving Dumbledore's life at the > beginning of HBP under the rug. Neither side of the debate has a > lock on directness, I would say. (And I enjoyed the humor of > Neri's post, but I don't see it's revelence to JKR's use of twists > or the directness of Snape's character arc.) Lupinlore: I don't see how an OFH!Snape (which I think is what both Nora and I find the most plausible) requires sweeping that incident under the rug at all. As I recall, this occurred before the UV. At that point, Snape's best interest was served by keeping DD alive. By doing so he kept his options open and created no increased risk for himself. After the UV, his self-interest changes radically. Seems pretty straightforward to me. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I think it's a bit of a strawman to get into a "who's more complex" > argument (I did start it, sorry ), but I will say a lot of Ron's > page time is spent doing exposition. We do see him develop and we > do get insight into his character, but not every single time he > comes up. And he does fall into several "loyal side-kick" > stereotypes. Honestly, I think Snape and Ron are about equal as > characters. I think Ron has more promise of surviving the series > (so more of a future) but I don't think he beats Snape in the > dynamics department. > I would agree with Nora that we do see more of a character dynamic in Ron than in Snape. Most of Snape's appearances are pretty boring and predictable (i.e. here he comes, let's see how nasty and childish he can be this time). We really so no change or development in the character, simply further revelations of already existing facts. The character of Snape shows no change or development at all. In that sense, he already IS partially made of cardboard. > > Betsy Hp: > But then it doesn't set an impossibly high standard for any > character to achieve to be on the side of good. They are none of > them saints, so it's unwise to be too judgmental of them. The tar > brushed on one character may well paint another. It's a pretty big jump from "they are none of them saints" to "it's unwise to be too judgmental." There aren't many saints walking around in RL either, yet judgment and working toward justice -- which means determining that some people are in the right and some in the wrong -- are an absolutely necessary part of real life. Sometimes you even have to decide that some of these not-saints are good and some of them evil. So too, I suspect, it is in the Potterverse. Lupinlore From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 04:20:25 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:20:25 -0000 Subject: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141637 > > Valky: > > Oh Nora, I can't let that one slide by, sorry. > > > > The questionableness of the Avada Kedavra on the tower *is* > > minimizing the approach to assumptions. Consider what assumptions > > need to be made to *believe* that it was an successful Killing > > curse. > Nora: > We saw Snape say "Avada Kedavra". We saw a green jet of light. We > saw said jet of light hit Dumbledore. You have to do far, far more > work to say "It wasn't actually an AK!" than to go "Well damn, that > was a killing curse." > > JKR was kind enough to specify the color of the light this time > around, nu? You have to postulate that there is some way to fake > the AK, that Snape did it, and then that the fall killed Dumbledore, > somehow the potion amazingly killed him after said fall. That ain't > or minimizing assumptions, I think. Valky: Okay, no you don't have to postulate that Snape faked the AK. There is only one, just one, assumption need be made to question that the Avada Kedavra killed Dumbledore and it is hardly an assumption at all- assume that is all successful Avada Kedvra's we have seen on living things in canon are the extent of the effects of a successful Avada Kedavra on living things. After that, The Tower is the odd man out. And many applications follow. We can speculate narrowly on the reason; it could even be that it was an *unsuccessful* Avada Kedavra - which requires Snape to fake nothing; but we *have* with mimimal assumption on our part established that the Avada Kedavra *is* exceptional as to whether it is the cause of death. And most importantly IMO bypassed that turbid well of speculative assumption that the whole trust issue presents in the mystery. So hence my argument is that you have to do far far far more work to assume that it was a successful betrayal of Dumbledore ending in a simple deadly Avada Kedavra cast at him by Snape, than you must to eliminate a successful Avada Kedavra from the mystery. > Nora: > I know the exceptionalism argument for the AK, but I think, yet > again, that's instance of trying to work around what we > have. 'Exceptional' requires, IMO, a better standard of 'normative' > than we have at present. Valky: There are five cases of a *successful* Avada Kedavra on a living beings clear and unambigiously shown in canon and zero contradictions to these successful Avada Kedavra's *on living things*. Are there the same number of normalising agents to the assumption that Snape betrayed and killed Dumbledore by taking advantage of his weakened state? less contradictions? You do have to establish reason for the contradictory case of this Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore in order to call it successful. And that takes assumptions, piles of em. ;D > Valky: > > You have to assume Dumbledore was tricked by Snape first and is it > > a huge assumption to say Dumbledore was fooled for 16 years and > > ultimately betrayed despite repeated warnings from so many trusted > > allies? Yes it is. > Nora: > Repeated warnings from so many trusted allies? I can think of Moody > in the courtroom scene, and Harry's objections (which Dumbledore > never puts to rest), but the rest of the Order seems to have > been "Well, we thought Dumbledore knew what he was doing--he sure > didn't share..." Valky: Well yeah I did take a certain liberty with that statement, but I am sure there are more cases than you cited. There were a lot of suspicious people in DD's ear. I think that among the strongest of all cases that needs be explained away is how Dumbledore could dismiss Harry! *one of his most trusted* accusing Snape of taking an Unbreakable Vow, surely that needs to have raised a degree of suspicion in Dumbledore. > Nora: > As well, my personal model doesn't require Dumbledore to have been > fooled for 16 years, just for two or so. There *are* different > options than "Snape has always been evil" and "Snape has always been > loyal to Dumbledore through and through", so don't make me go get my > buddy Mr. Excluded Middle. Valky: Sure, I am open to that if you like. It's certainly not eliminated by a dodgy looking Avada Kedavra. my main issue here is with the notion that taking the scene at face value minimises assumptions to be going on with. I just can't say that it does at all. Face value as I percieve it, just takes on board the greatest assumption there is to be made here, the one that I have long since put in the *too hard basket*. Valky: > > ... explain how Dumbledore died peacefully, with his > > peace shattered and the boy he was protecting, the hope of the > > whole wizard world, left alone and unprepared at the top of the > > tower with his betrayer. > Nora: > Acceptance of death (which I assume you're drawing out from the > facial expression) is not necessarily the same thing as dying with > all your plans in order, when you wanted to. I can see Dumbledore > not fighting against his own death (having the courage to go on, and > not fearing death) while still dying under what were, we might say, > sub-optimal circumstances. Valky: That's a fair assumption. Now tell me where was Fawkes? Why didn't Harry's scream take form while he screamed at the moment the Avada Kedavra hit Dumbledore? Why didn't Snape let Dumbledore die of Voldemort's curse earlier in the year? Maybe they, and any other questions, can all be explained away, it's fair enough to say that they can I can probably do it all myself right here, couldn't I, but it can't be said that they don't need to be explained at all, surely? > > -Nora almost wishes for a website update to toss us some crumbs > Oh you and me both Nora. Valky From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 06:21:32 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:21:32 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141638 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Steve (bboyminn) wrote: > > > I think this whole Unbreakable Vow 'thing' is way overrated. > I think unless you construct and word the Vow with iron-clad > certainty and precision, it is pretty much worthless. > > > > > > > > ...edited... > > > > Overal, I see the whole Unbreakable Vow process riddled with > > loopholes, and these specific Vows are certainly vague and > > uncertain. > Carol responds: > ...edited... > > ... What I'd like to know is what you make of Snape's decisions on > the tower. If the vow isn't binding, why bother to rush upstairs? > Why not just reveal his loyalties and fight with the Order or the > Death Eaters if he's not going to drop dead for failing to keep the > vow? And why kill Dumbledore at all? Why not let someone else take > the fall if he's not bound by an oath to do it? > > It makes no sense to me that he would murder Dumbledore for no > reason, after having saved his life earlier in the year. > ...edited... > bboyminn: I think you will find the answer to your question here - From: "Steve" Date: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:34 pm Subject: Re: Dumbledore's pleading - Forgive and Forget, or Not http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141462 In short, it easy to say Snape should do this or that, but Snape is outmanned and outgunned. He is facing 4 vicious battle-enraged Death Eaters and Draco, with more DE's waiting down in the hallway. Harry is frozen, and Dumbledore is weak, helpless, and wandless. So what's Snape going to do? Stick with Death Eaters and maintain his valuable position among that and maintain his new position as Voldemort's favorite, or is he going to go down fighting, in which case, he, Harry, Dumbledore, and in all likelihood, Draco are all lost? And, that probable creates a good chance that the war will be lost. The question is, do Snape and Dumbledore except that they have lost this battle and let themselves both die fighting, or do the salvage as much of the situation as they can, and fight again another day? Snape is in a pretty valuable position which would have been lost if he had fought the DEs; a fight he would have likely lost. If they salvage that position, it could be the deciding factor that wins the war. Winning the War is much higher priority that winning this one battle, and I think Dumbledore accepted this; he accepted that he must be a casualty of war so that the final and greatest battle could be won once and for all. Also, you'll notive that in my 'salvage what you can' scenario, the Vow is not involved at all. > Carol: > > And to throw in a point from an unrelated thread, you were talking > about shortcuts to the Horcruxes. I think Harry will go to the ROR > to retrieve the HBP's Potions book, find the Mirror of Erised there, > and see his heart's desire, the location of that mysterious > Ravenclaw Horcrux, which will turn out to be the tiara he used to > mark the location of the Potions book. Shortcut enough for you? Or > just cheating? > > Carol, bboyminn: Now that is just about the best shortcut I've heard so far. Simple, easy, and very likely; I like it. Steve/bboyminn From kjones at telus.net Sat Oct 15 08:07:35 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 01:07:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4350B8C7.4040400@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141639 > > Steve (bboyminn) wrote: > > I think this whole Unbreakable Vow 'thing' is way overrated. > > I think unless you construct and word the Vow with iron-clad > > certainty and precision, it is pretty much worthless. snip > > > Overal, I see the whole Unbreakable Vow process riddled with > > > loopholes, and these specific Vows are certainly vague and > > > uncertain. KJ writes: From the description that Ron gave of his father's emotional state when he caught Fred and George beginning to perform the UV with a five year old, it would indicate to me that it was extremely dangerous. Obviously a five year old would not have enough understanding to realize what the Vow meant, what breaking the Vow would mean, or even be able to take care not to break it. This would indicate to me that the Vow must be rather literal in its operation and would not necessarily depend upon the person's knowledge that he or she was breaking it. Snape has already had some experience of UV's and it would appear that he felt that he could satisfy vows 1 & 2. I don't think that he was expecting it, from the blank look on his face as described in this chapter, but he was willing. I think he was aware of Draco's task. It is almost obvious from the way Narcissa almost said that even Voldemort could not do it. She stated twice that Voldemort trusted him so much. Even Snape agreed that he thought that Voldemort expected him to do it in the end, but wanted to protect his position as long as possible. Narcissa reminded him that he would be honoured above all others. Dumbledore was injured prior to this conversation and was probably already aware that he had not much longer to go. It became absolutely necessary to cement Snape's position with Voldemort. This was the reason Snape was given the DADA job. Either way, they only had a year to accomplish what they needed to accomplish. While uncomfortable with the third vow, the loss of Dumbledore was something that he was already facing. What he needed to know from Draco was how he intended to accomplish his task. If Snape had known all the whys and wherefores he might have been able to direct events so that Draco never had the opportunity and Snape would have faced no obligation under the Vow. Snape became more and more demanding and suspicious of Draco during the year and Snape's failure to gain his confidence was likely the cause of the argument with DD in the forest. I am confident that Snape warned DD and possibly asked him to leave Hogwarts, which of course DD would have refused to do. I think that this alone would have thwarted the Vow. When Snape arrived on the tower at the precise moment of Draco's failure, his hands were tied. In order to obey DD's directive to get closer to Voldemort, he had to kill Dumbledore to live. I am convinced that as a result of his action, Snape will be showered with horcruxes by a grateful Voldemort, which will considerably shorten the search if he can send them parcel post to Harry. KJ From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 08:26:43 2005 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 08:26:43 -0000 Subject: Harry and wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > > > In the thread of performing magic without a wand I haven't seen > anyone > > mention Harry doing it. But he has. As far back as before he even > > learned he was a wizard, Harry performed wandless magic several times > > (zoo, hair, jumping the roof etc. etc.) - so he's skilled to do so. > > Maybe he simply needs to practice and concentrate more ... > > > > Inge > > > > Also, in OoTP, he lights his wand, even though it's several feet away > from him. (In his desparation to fight the Dementors, he > mutters, "Lumos" after Dudley punches him and the wand drops.) It > makes sense to me that a highly emotionally charged incident would make > wandless magic happen. Desperate times... > > Allie Sue Very true, and it seems to happen with magical children in general - look at what the young Voldemort did to the other children at the orphanage and, while George might have borrowed a wand to transfigue Ron's teddy bear, chances are he just did it. > The wand seems to be just a tool, perhaps for focussing? It's better if you have it, but I bet a wizard like DD could manage verywell without one. From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 09:50:09 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:50:09 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic (wasRe: Wands) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141641 "potioncat" : > Perhaps 7th years learn wandless magic? But, if it requires eye > contact > or at least a contant line of sight, I wouldn't think it would work > too > well in a battle. The other question is, have we seen any wandless > magic in HBP? > Finwitch: We have seen wandless magic since PS! McGonagall's animagi to start with. Then we see all sorts of magic Harry does. Each of them silent (Harry doesn't even KNOW the incantations) and wandless. I wonder though - Dumbledore speaking of the power of a whole and untainted soul - could this wandless magic *children* perform be the key to that? We have also seen Harry perform wandless curse on Aunt Marge (his wand was still in the cupboard under the stairs). And I'd say that how Dumbledore stunned the Ministry Wizards in OOP was wandless, too. Also, I think that a wand makes using magic easier - which is the purpose of a tool. You know - like our machines for moving heavy objects... Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 15 13:00:30 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:00:30 -0000 Subject: Tiaras (was Re: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141642 > > Carol: > > > > And to throw in a point from an unrelated thread, you were talking > > about shortcuts to the Horcruxes. I think Harry will go to the ROR > > to retrieve the HBP's Potions book, find the Mirror of Erised there, > > and see his heart's desire, the location of that mysterious > > Ravenclaw Horcrux, which will turn out to be the tiara he used to > > mark the location of the Potions book. Shortcut enough for you? Or > > just cheating? > > > > Carol, > > bboyminn: > > Now that is just about the best shortcut I've heard so far. Simple, > easy, and very likely; I like it. > Potioncat: Molly thinks her great aunt will lend her tiara to Fleur. Hmm, wonder if Aunt Muriel's tiara is missing? Is it just me or aren't there an awful lot of tiaras all of a sudden? It just seems a bit odd that someone in the Weasley family also has a tiara...from a plot standpoint. Or was one of the tiaras crafted by the famous Mark Evans? From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 15 13:03:50 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:03:50 -0000 Subject: wishes (wasRe: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141643 > > -Nora almost wishes for a website update to toss us some crumbs > > > Valky: > Oh you and me both Nora. > > Potioncat: Oh, be careful what you wish for.... From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 15 13:42:09 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:42:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > To wit, many people very fervently believed that certain aspects of the > Harry/Hermione relationship were clues that gave insight into a major > plot point, i.e. a developing H/Hr ship. Others held that these things > were in fact red herrings. Many said if these points were dismissed > that would constitute introducing a bunch of Flints. Pippin: I am not talking about subjective interpretations, where a piece of toast is invested with all the significance a lovelorn fan can read into it. There was nothing, ever, in canon to show that Harry had the slightest physical attraction to Hermione. There was never any hint that he found Ginny repulsive in any way, though certainly a lot of readers found her so. There was only a stubborn hope that if Harry was going to develop a sudden physical attraction to a girl, it would be for Hermione and not Ginny, because, well, because that's the way some fans wanted it to be. Like some fans wanted Snape to be a vampire . But there was never any obvious reason in the text to suppose that Snape couldn't be human, and never any obvious reason in the text to suppose that Harry couldn't fall in love with little Miss Weasley, despite all the wailing and gnashing. I am talking about facts, and facts are stubborn things, even in fiction. There is no obvious reading in which an AK can account for the blood around Dumbledore's mouth, and no obvious reading in which the appearance of the moon *before* Lupin transforms can be compatible with a transformation caused by the chance appearance of the moon. If those things are not Flints, or JKR choosing to contradict herself for artistic effect, then they require some explanation in the text. An explanation consonant with guilty Snape or innocent Lupin can surely be contrived, but it will take just as much space as an explanation that isn't, and it won't move the plot forward at all, so why make it necessary in the first place? Speaking of which, the murderer of Sirius must be brought to justice and that will take quite as much ink whether it is Bella or Lupin, so I don't quite see how the fact that there is only one book remaining is going to get Lupin off the hook. OFH!Snape is going to take a lot of ink, too, to explain why Snape would take the vow or submit to a master as demanding as Dumbledore. The only Snape with a backstory is DDM!Snape --we have no explanation as to why OFH!Snape would risk his life to watch over and protect *anybody* or why he wouldn't abandon Dumbledore once Voldemort was gone and Crouch was making deals. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 15 13:46:43 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:46:43 -0000 Subject: Tiaras (was Re: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141645 Carol: > > And to throw in a point from an unrelated thread, you were > > talking about shortcuts to the Horcruxes. I think Harry will go > > to the ROR to retrieve the HBP's Potions book, find the Mirror > > of Erised there, and see his heart's desire, the location of > > that mysterious Ravenclaw Horcrux, which will turn out to be the > > tiara he used to mark the location of the Potions book. Shortcut > > enough for you? Or just cheating? bboyminn: > > Now that is just about the best shortcut I've heard so far. > > Simple, easy, and very likely; I like it. Potioncat: > Molly thinks her great aunt will lend her tiara to Fleur. Hmm, > wonder if Aunt Muriel's tiara is missing? Is it just me or aren't > there an awful lot of tiaras all of a sudden? SSSusan: Hey! I think so, too! Here's something I wrote on another list back on Sept. 17: >>>OF COURSE Harry's going to go back into the Room of Requirement! And OF COURSE he's going to find something else of importance there. It's that bloody *tiara* on top of the dusty wig on top of the warlock bust on top of the cupboard that he needs! THAT'S the missing Ravenclaw horcrux!<<< Heh heh. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who loves it when she has a silly idea that somebody else has, too! From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Oct 15 14:33:23 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tiaras (was Re: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051015143323.22441.qmail@web53309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141646 cubfanbudwoman wrote: Carol: > > And to throw in a point from an unrelated thread, you were > > talking about shortcuts to the Horcruxes. I think Harry will go > > to the ROR to retrieve the HBP's Potions book, find the Mirror > > of Erised there, and see his heart's desire, the location of > > that mysterious Ravenclaw Horcrux, which will turn out to be the > > tiara he used to mark the location of the Potions book. Shortcut > > enough for you? Or just cheating? bboyminn: > > Now that is just about the best shortcut I've heard so far. > > Simple, easy, and very likely; I like it. Potioncat: > Molly thinks her great aunt will lend her tiara to Fleur. Hmm, > wonder if Aunt Muriel's tiara is missing? Is it just me or aren't > there an awful lot of tiaras all of a sudden? SSSusan: Hey! I think so, too! Here's something I wrote on another list back on Sept. 17: >>>OF COURSE Harry's going to go back into the Room of Requirement! And OF COURSE he's going to find something else of importance there. It's that bloody *tiara* on top of the dusty wig on top of the warlock bust on top of the cupboard that he needs! THAT'S the missing Ravenclaw horcrux!<<< Heh heh. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who loves it when she has a silly idea that somebody else has, too! Luckdragon: Now were all starting to think alike. I wrote this on Aug.8 in message 137006. "I keep thinking about the tiara he places on the statue to help mark his spot. Jo always seems to throw in mundane info. which ends up important. ie) the locket at 12 grimmauld place. I could be totally off, but ever since learning about the horcrux's the tarnished old tiara has stuck in my mind." ...interesting though about Molly's Aunt having a Tiara as well. So much seems to add up to that family being related to royalty or one of the founders. I can't wait to find out if we are right about this. 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 nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 14:39:00 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:39:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > I am talking about facts, and facts are stubborn things, even in > fiction. The shippers regarded their approach to the books as reading facts. I take it you're more inclined to seem them as, well...delusional? :) > There is no obvious reading in which an AK can account for the > blood around Dumbledore's mouth, and no obvious reading in which > the appearance of the moon *before* Lupin transforms can be > compatible with a transformation caused by the chance appearance of > the moon. > > If those things are not Flints, or JKR choosing to contradict > herself for artistic effect, then they require some explanation in > the text. This is where I'd disagree. Not every fact (in the sense of 'observation of data') requires explanation, because not every event in the series gets an explanation. I remember post-OotP that it was somehow massively significant that Luna was not on the train, because JKR very, very purposefully didn't mention her. Well, there hasn't been any payoff yet. It would be the rarer work of fiction (unless we go back in time, natch) that feels the need or the use of space to elucidate every detail and fit it neatly into the plot. Again, it's the question of whether JKR thinks it's *important* or whether it's just there because dude, it's there. > An explanation consonant with guilty Snape or innocent Lupin can > surely be contrived, but it will take just as much space as an > explanation that isn't, and it won't move the plot forward at all, > so why make it necessary in the first place? Guilty!Snape doesn't move the plot forward? We all want to know why he did it, and what he's been doing since. Perhaps he even has a special item or two with him. Harry resolves the part of the plot line that deals with Snape, and we go on. Sure, ESE!Lupin moves the plot in different directions, and is quite BANG-y. But it's not like the alternative dread to you is dramatically dead. > or why he wouldn't abandon Dumbledore once Voldemort was gone and > Crouch was making deals. I suppose that Snape's "it was comfortable and it kept me out of trouble" explanation is something you're only willing to accept for a limited amount of time. But OFH!Snape knows the vagaries of the world, and isn't going to ruin a good thing: sure, Dumbledore puts some restrictions on him, but on the other hand, given DD's temperament, he's going to allow Snape to be Snape with considerable latitude. Should anyone, someone resurface, Snapeykins is still in a nice place to be. See, that didn't take much ink. -Nora has devilish thoughts about who sent the DE crew after the Longbottoms: someone who knew those people, and knew about the prophecy, and wanted either or both of them gone... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 15 15:03:38 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:03:38 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141648 Pippin: > ....I suddenly wonder if Dumbledore was pleading for forgiveness > too. Could he have been asking Snape to forgive him for putting > him in an impossible position by refusing to let Snape withdraw? > Snape had only vowed to protect Draco to the best of his ability; > if Dumbledore had sacked Snape and banished him from the school, he > wouldn't have had to carry out the third part of the vow either. Jen: I've been thinking about this one and wonder if Dumbledore banishing Snape would actually relieve him of the first two clauses of the Vow, or whether the Vow would really care? ;) It seems like the point of Unbreakable is it wouldn't matter what obstacles come in your path, you are bound to fulfill the Vow or die. So if Snape was banished he would still be obliged to find a way to watch over Draco, making it unlikely Dumbeldore would put such an obstacle in his path. But if you change the idea up a little as KJ did..... Then KJ added this thought in #141639: > Snape became more and more demanding and suspicious of Draco > during the year and Snape's failure to gain his confidence was > likely the cause of the argument with DD in the forest. I am > confident that Snape warned DD and possibly asked him to leave > Hogwarts, which of course DD would have refused to do. I think > that this alone would have thwarted the Vow. Jen: Now this seems more likely to work for the *Vow*, as Draco would be thwarted bringing in the DE's if they won't find Dumbledore when they get there. Plus, Snape could fulfill the first two clauses of the Vow quite easily and not have to worry about an unexpected event like the Tower scene, where his hand is forced. As KJ said though, Dumbledore would never leave Hogwarts. Not only because everyone there depends on him and Hogwarts is his life's work, but also his leaving would surely endanger Draco's life as well as Snape's in Voldemort's eyes. Both would have to go on the run after Dumbledore on LV's orders, leaving Hogwarts very short of protection. I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore stayed away from Hogwarts more than usual because of the Vow, though, and not because he was afraid of dying. He wanted to avoid a scene like the Tower as much as Snape did, prolong the inevitable and safeguard Draco and Snape as much as possible. Much as I like the idea he was pleading for forgiveness on the tower, it seems clear both Snape and Dumbledore knew neither of them could leave Hogwarts without consequences. Another thought on the pleading which isn't my original thought, I'm sure: If Book 6 gave us information about Dumbledore's boggart as JKR said it did, could it be in that moment of pleading? Is Dumbledore's greatest fear Harry dying before Voldemort, and his plea to Snape was to finish the job Dumbledore started and can't complete? By that point, after OOTP, Dumbledore would know this was asking almost the impossible of Snape, but he would also want to believe Snape would do the right thing even if Dumbledore died (just as Harry refused to tell McGonagall anything about the Horcrux search just because Dumbledore died). Except in the case of Snape, Dumbledore couldn't be 100% certain Snape would do so because of his hatred, and thus the plea. Jen, off to doggy obedience class with her very jumpy terrier. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 04:23:19 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:23:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Characters and Consequences? was: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051015042319.35960.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141649 Alla wrote: "I think JKR backed of with Dumbledore's speech in HBP, because to me the main point Dumbledore seemed to make in OOP as to Harry's situation at Dursleys was " I knew you would suffer" and the main point of his speech at Dursleys in HBP was " I trusted you to raise him like a son, but you never treated him like son" ( paraphrase). Those two points seem to be contradictory to me, BUT I am actually HAPPY that JKR backed off, because I DO like Dumbledore, I do NOT think that he is a Puppetmaster, but I think that his speech in OOP seemed to give that impression and I do not think that this was her intent at all. So, I much rather have Dumbledore who was hoping that Dursleys treat Harry as family member than the one who KNEW that they would not and left Harry with them anyway. As I said, to me JKR redeemed Albus (sort of) with his HBP speech. Right, I should stop now, because I could go on and on. :-)" CH3ed: I like Alla's line of thinking. I think DD was neither a puppet-master nor a mother hen. He foresaw potential outcomes of things well, but he was willing to give those he dealt with the chance to rise to the occasion .... or not, which I think is wise, as long as DD guarded against potentially disastrous outcomes (DD gave Riddle the benefit of a doubt and a chance when Riddle was at school, but he was keeping his eyes on him all the same...tho he couldn't catch Riddle openning the Chamber of Secrets, etc). I think DD hoped the Dursleys would treat Harry well, but he suspected they wouldn't. At the same time he foresaw that even that would be better for Harry than to have him brought up without his mother's lingering protection at other wizarding household in full knowledge of his revered status in the WW (which would probably have spoiled him). So DD knew Harry would suffer living with the Dursleys, but it would be the kind of suffering that builds characters. I also buy DD's read of LV as never trusting anyone and never considering anyone as his friend or confidant, but expendable servants. I'd bet that in the course of Book 7 one Bellatrix Lestrange would finally figure that out in LV and considers his not returning her loyalty (for lack of better word) to be a betrayal worthy of some hysterically irrational act (the kind Bella seems apt to.... Hot-headedness seems to run in the Blacks with the possible exception of Phineas Nigelus) that could really cost LV something dearly. It would be something to see the evil lord brought down (to where Harry could finish him off) by his own disgrunted servants, wouldn't it? A fine pay back for DD. From glzie at comcast.net Sat Oct 15 06:26:37 2005 From: glzie at comcast.net (zandi1717) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:26:37 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141650 Can someone please direct me to which book (and page number, if you can) that this vanishing cabinet is mentioned? I guess I'm just not remembering it from my first read of HBP. Thanks :) Laura - too busy to start at SS and read to HBP to find out exactly when this device was mentioned! From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Oct 15 11:34:56 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:34:56 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: <4350B8C7.4040400@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141651 Kathryn Jones wrote: > > > This would indicate to me that the Vow must > be rather literal in its operation and would not necessarily depend upon > the person's knowledge that he or she was breaking it. Lupinlore: I think you are absolutely right on this one. I don't see some heavenly court sitting around waiting to hear appeals on the wording of UVs. I suspect it is extremely literal in its operation, thus its power. Kathryn Jones: > Dumbledore was injured prior to this conversation and was probably > already aware that he had not much longer to go. It became absolutely > necessary to cement Snape's position with Voldemort. When Snape arrived on the tower at the precise moment > of Draco's failure, his hands were tied. In order to obey DD's directive > to get closer to Voldemort, he had to kill Dumbledore to live. And once again this is where all this speculation breaks down. The idea that this was anticipated in advance and that all of this played out to gain Voldy's trust is totally unbelievable and so cheesy it would attract every rat in the Potterverse (which is not to say, unfortunately, that JKR won't go that way, the mozzarella factor in the Potterverse increased markedly in HBP after all). Snape being bound by the vow and having to choose between DD's life and his own I can buy. Snape having concern for Draco's life I can buy. DD ordering Snape to kill him, either as part of a preset contingency or as part of some unbelievably contrived legilimency scenario on the tower -- pardon me while I smell the Stinking Bishop (and if anybody out there hasn't seen Wallace and Gromit, from whence cometh that reference, this is a great weekend for a matinee!). Lupinlore From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Sat Oct 15 11:45:03 2005 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:45:03 -0000 Subject: Fleshing out the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141652 Kizor wrote: > X) Is it okay to steal an idea and use it as a detail? Should I > include a note saying that it came from someone whom I can best thank > by not mentioning his name? unlikely2 replies Hi, Kizor. Leaving aside the rest of your post, because if I don't this won't be posted until 2012. Perhaps a named spell or object should be always attributed (where possible), an insight or an attitude according to circumstance. For example, I find myself uneasy reading fics where muggles are casually slaughtered for the convenience of magicals. The implicit assumption that muggles are less human than magicals worries me. It would be outrageous to take this attitude to people who are physically handicapped, which I think would be analagous. In wartime a fit trained fighter or a spy might be considered more valuable than someone who is not but I would argue that this should be the exception rather than the rule. It's not explicit in cannon but it seems likely that magicals do consider themselves more valuable and it would be interesting to explore how far that attitude goes. Anyway, good luck with the fic. If you haven't already done so, may I suggest that you post this on Fiction Ally? unlikely2 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 15 16:25:32 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:25:32 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zandi1717" wrote: > > Can someone please direct me to which book (and page number, if you > can) that this vanishing cabinet is mentioned? > > I guess I'm just not remembering it from my first read of HBP. > > Thanks :) > > Laura - too busy to start at SS and read to HBP to find out exactly > when this device was mentioned! Geoff: The two references I can recall are: '"Malfoy just docked us all about fifty points," said Harry furiously as they watched several more stones fly upwards from the Gryffindor hour-glass. "Yeah, Montague tried to do us during break," said George. "What do you mean, 'tried'?" said Ron quickly. He never managed to get all the words out" said Fred, "due to the fact that we forced him head-first into that Vanishing Cabinet on the first floor." Hermione looked very shocked. "But you'll get into terrible trouble!" "Not until Montague reappears and that could take weeks..."' (OOTP "Snape's Worst Memory" p.552 UK edition) '"....so tell me, while we wait for your friends... how did you smuggle them in here? It seems to have taken you a long time to work out how to do it." Malfoy looked as if he was fighting down the urge to shout, or to vomit. He gulped and took several breaths, glaring at Dumbledore, his wand pointing directly at the latter's heart. Then, as though he could not help himself, he said, "I had to mend that broken Vanishing Cabinet that no one's used for years. The one Montague got stuck in last year." "Aaaah." Dumbledore's sigh was half a groan. He closed his eyes for a moment. "That was clever... there is a pair, I take it?" "The other's in Borgin and Burkes," said Malfoy...' (HBP "The Lightning-Struck Tower" p. 548 UK edition) Hope this helps. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 15 17:19:44 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:19:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141654 Nora: > The shippers regarded their approach to the books as reading facts. I > take it you're more inclined to seem them as, well...delusional? :) Pippin: I don't think I've ever called anyone delusional. Some arguments seem to be based on subjective opinions rather than canon fact, but that's not delusional, it's just not the way I approach the story. Case in point, the anti-H/G case rested on the notion that Ginny was simply too insignificant and too ordinary to be Harry's love interest -- those are *opinions* based on subjective judgement, not facts. If there were "facts" cited by the anti/HG crew to show that H/G could never happen I must have missed them, could you point me to a post? Nora: > This is where I'd disagree. Not every fact (in the sense > of 'observation of data') requires explanation, because not every > event in the series gets an explanation. Pippin: It needs an explanation if it contradicts something we already know. We know the moon was already visible on the night of the Shrieking Shack. We know that AK doesn't leave any sign. We didn't know, in the same sense, that Luna was supposed to be on the train. > > > An explanation consonant with guilty Snape or innocent Lupin can > > surely be contrived, but it will take just as much space as an > > explanation that isn't, and it won't move the plot forward at all, > > so why make it necessary in the first place? Nora: > Guilty!Snape doesn't move the plot forward? We all want to know why > he did it, and what he's been doing since. Perhaps he even has a > special item or two with him. Harry resolves the part of the plot > line that deals with Snape, and we go on. Pippin: The blood needs to be explained because it contradicts something we've been told: AK doesn't cause any sign of damage. If the explanation is that the AK killed him and Dumbledore bled posthumously, that doesn't move the plot forward. It's dramatically dead. If the explanation is that the AK didn't work for some reason, that moves the plot away from Guilty!Snape. Nora: But OFH!Snape knows the vagaries of the world, and isn't going to ruin a good thing: sure, Dumbledore puts some restrictions on him, but on the other hand, given DD's temperament, he's going to allow Snape to be Snape with considerable latitude. Should anyone, someone resurface, Snapeykins is still in a nice place to be. See, that didn't take much ink. Pippin: *Nice*? "If you are ready...if you are prepared." Whatever Snape was in for that night, nice had nothing to do with it. And Fudge showed no sign of wanting to throw Snape into Azkaban, either, so what trouble was Snape trying to stay out of there? Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 17:21:42 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:21:42 -0000 Subject: Fleshing out the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miikka R." wrote: > > I've done it again and had a compulsive inspiration. When I think I > can do the concept justice (translation: Watch this space in 2012) > I'll be writing a fanfic about a post-Voldemort movement against the > Statute of Secrecy. Yes - the Muggle Liberation Front is here. > > The potential fic will examine the dynamics of the wizarding world > indetail. The problem is that we don't *have* much detail. I'll be > doing a lot of geofiction. These questions come to mind at present, > I'd be thankful for ideas and perspectives on any of them and some > might even be interesting: > - Kizor > 1) How do wizards and witches stay fit? Magic appears to drastically > reduce the amount of physical labour. At least the kids in Hogwarts > walk and run all over the place. > bboyminn: Given that both the USA and Britian, as well as other developed countries, have an epidemic of obesity, I don't think very many people magic or muggle DO stay fit as adults. Keep in mind that most people, muggle or magic, sit in an office all day an never lift anything heavier than a file folder. However, magic people seem to have a certain natural resilience that likely increases their stamina, and that substitutes for being fit. That said, it only goes so far, and aside from this one advantage, I see wizard fitness as a factor of age, and generlly speaking, magic are no more fit than muggles. Dumbledore and the other teachers being the exceptions since they must walk up and down 7 LONG flights of stairs several times a day. > - Kizor > 2) If a Muggle child gets bitten by a werewolf during the second > wizarding war, is there any feasible course of action that doesn't > involve skilled Obliviators and a silver dagger? > bboyminn: I don't think this is a detail we were ever meant to consider. There really is no information in books or interviews that we can use, or at least not that I'm aware of. Given the extreme nature of the illness, I suspect, in a manner of speaking, muggle werewolves of any age self-destruct very quickly. Other than that, I suspect (highly speculative) that infected victims are brought into the wizard world and their condition is explained to them. I futher suspect they are closely supervised until they are adults at which time they must fend for themselves. This is really one of those unanswerable questions and in the end, it will have to come from your imagination. > - Kizor: > 3) How much would the wizarding outlook on human rights differ? > Muggles are largely considered an inferior race and their deaths, > should they encounter a Statute-protected species, are covered up. > House-elves are sapients kept in (admittedly willing) slavery; > Slughorn had them test for poison. > bboyminn: I've always considered the wizard world somewhat of a frontier society. To some extent, anything goes as long as the muggles don't find out or it doesn't disturb the peace of the wizard world. So, on human rights, I think the wizard world is pretty liberal. On creature rigths, such as the rights of the house-elves, I think they are a little more convervative. As to the magic-related deaths of muggles, and the deaths of muggles are not so much covered up in the sense that they are excused, they are covered up in the sense that the magic related cause of that death is covered up with a muggle-worthy excuse. But the crime itself would certainly not go unpunished by wizard government. As to the house-elves, I have said many times before that it is in their true deep underlying nature to serve humans and to do so with great loyalty and honor. Wizards on the other hand are not so honorable and they, over the course of many centuries, have twisted basic Elfin honor and loyalty to their advantage. Elves willing enter into voluntary servitude, it is wizard who have twisted it into slavery because that gives them great control over this valuable resource. I have speculated in a very fanfic way that if the agreement between Elves and Wizard was looked into closely and with a very objective eye, we would see the elves are free to come and go as they please. That wizard really don't have that much control over the elves in that there is no law magical, legal, or other that holds elves in their place. It's nothing but Elvin honor, history, and loyalty to their word that binds them. > - Kizor: > 4) Might any other paramilitary organisations form in the current > conflict, aside from the Order of the Phoenix? > bboyminn: Remember that there are MANY millions of muggles, and only a few (unspecified number) thousands of magical people in Britian. I suspect like most people, most wizard are content to lay low and let the government handle any defensive needs. Although, if sufficiently threatened I could see vigilante groups forming to protect the wizard world. However, vigilante groups are very much different from the Order of the Phoenix. > - Kizor: > 5) Given the wizard infiltration of Muggle governments, was there > ever a significant risk of nuclear war? > bboyminn: I'm not so sure that wizards have infiltrated the muggle government. If there are any magical people in muggle government I suspect it is incidental. True Shacklebolt was assigned as the personal assistant to the Prime Minister but that was too protect him. Shacklebolt certainly doesn't have his finger on the 'button'. Again, I suspect that there may be a few wizards or muggle-born who favor the muggle life and have jobs in the muggle government and while they could be usefull at times, I hardly think they are in a position to cause any damage. If you want to read a good book about what the world would be like if Magical people ran the government, try reading 'The Bartimaeus Trilogy' by Jonathan Stroud (Amulet of Samarkand, Golem's Eye, and Ptolomy's Gate). > - Kizor: > 6) Religion is ignored by the books. Is there good evidence against > the usual low-grade Anglican Christianity, in this case rather > different to its attitudes to magic? > bboyminn: I think most wizards do have some general religious convictions, but like most muggles it doesn't involve going to church all that often. In the Harry Potter universe, I really don't see any conflicts between the magical and muggle world as far as religion. People are free to believe what they want and excersize that belief as they see fit and are confortable with. > - Kizor: > (This is irrelevant, but I felt quite uncomfortable when Dumbledore > lit a burning yet unconsuming fire.) > bboyminn: I'm not sure how or why this would be related to religion. First what Dumbledore created as a gift to the Chief Giant was an EVERBURNING unconsuming fire. That's quite different from the many casual instances of unconsuming fire we see else where in the books. Remember Hermione's Bluebell flames that she kept in a jar? They certainly had no fuel and therefore were unconsuming, but I suspect they were not indefinite in their duration. At some point they went out. > - Kizor: > 7) How voluntary is the enrollment of Muggle-borns into Hogwarts? > bboyminn: I think it is very volumtary. Someone comes to the muggle house explains things in detail, and points out if nothing else, the person in question would learn to control their magic, and would therefore be less prone to spontaneous outburst of magic. If in the end, it's not for them, they are simply left alone. I'm not sure whether their minds would be erased of the fact or not. That's kind of a toss up. > - Kizor: > 8) Given that magic causes interference with electricity and wizards > very seldomly are at home with machinery, yet Shacklebolt was able > to hold a position in high Muggle government, could the Internet > provide a safe way for Muggle communication about the WW? > bboyminn: Who would be in communication with whom? Muggles already use the Internet extensively for communicating, we even communicate about the wizard word. If you are working in the framework of your story, then certainly the Internet would play a part. It is a fast, easy, intangible, and /uncensored/ method of communication. Also, I'm not sure I follow your logic on this question. It goes from magic interferring with electricity to Shacklebolt working for the Prime Minister to muggles using the internet. Not sure I see the connection. I suspect Shacklebolt is so good at his job because he's doing it with magic. But I don't see any connection to the internet or electricity. On the subject of electricity, I suspect primitive electical devices like a flashlight/torch would work at Hogwarts, but anything more complicated and anything electronic would be overwhelmed by the magic in the air and would not work. So, no computers, radios, TVs, PDAs, cell/mobile phones or regualar phones, steroes, microwaves, or other similar devices. I do suspect that while a cell phone would certainly not work around Hogwarts or Hogsmeade, it would work very marginally at Diagon Alley, but then that's just my opinion. > - Kizor: > X) Is it okay to steal an idea and use it as a detail? Should I > include a note saying that it came from someone whom I can best > thank by not mentioning his name? > > - Kizor bboyminn: It depends on what you are stealing. I've read some fanfictions that are so good, I consider them fact, and use those facts as underlying truths in my own stories. If the other person's concept is just an underlying fact in your world, that's pretty basic, but when you start quoting other people's work, that's something all together different. At any rate, if you are simply adapting a concept and not truely stealing their actual work, it wouldn't hurt to give them some credit. Side note: I'm not sure if this series of questions really qualifies for this group since it is not about direct discussion of canon. Perhaps it would do better in the OT forum. However, it does draw on our understanding and interpretation of the wizard world as presented in the books, so perhaps if the discussion doesn't become too extended, it will be allowed. Just a few thoughts. bboyminn From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Oct 15 16:14:26 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:14:26 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? was: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? In-Reply-To: <20051015042319.35960.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M. Thitathan" wrote: > > > > > CH3ed: I like Alla's line of thinking. I think DD was neither a puppet-master nor a mother hen. He foresaw potential outcomes of things well, but he was willing to give those he dealt with the chance to rise to the occasion .... or not, which I think is wise, as long as DD guarded against potentially disastrous outcomes (DD gave Riddle the benefit of a doubt and a chance when Riddle was at school, but he was keeping his eyes on him all the same...tho he couldn't catch Riddle openning the Chamber of Secrets, etc). I think DD hoped the Dursleys would treat Harry well, but he suspected they wouldn't. At the same time he foresaw that even that would be better for Harry than to have him brought up without his mother's lingering protection at other wizarding household in full knowledge of his revered status in the WW (which would probably have spoiled him). So DD knew Harry would suffer living with the Dursleys, but it would be the kind of suffering that builds characters. > Hmmm. You are right that it is POSSIBLE to weave those two speeches together with some kind of interpretation like you make here. However, unfortunately that lands Albus right back in the cauldron I think JKR was trying to get him out of. Namely, he comes off as a high-handed and manipulative old man who presumes to decide that a childhood of suffering "builds character." Not an attractive figure, and hardly an "epitome of goodness." It also once again resurrects questions about why he didn't actively intervene at the Dursleys, for instance to get Harry out of the closet, etc. He even comes off as something of a hypocrite in HBP, scolding the Dursleys for something he knew they would do. If they knew about his speech in OOTP they might justifiably retort "You knew what the boy was getting into and left him here, anyway, so get off your high-horse! You don't have any standing to complain." I grant you that an Albus who believed the Dursleys would treat Harry well and therefore was surprised and deeply disappointed to discover they had not comes off as foolish, or at least naive. But then that fits with some other Albus traits (not understanding how deep Sevvie's pain went, etc.) so I don't think JKR would be uncomfortable with that interpretation. So, although it is possible to weave the two speeches together (and I think you have done it about as well as it can be done) it's forced and unfortunately doesn't leave Albus looking very much better than he did after OOTP. I agree with Alla that the speeches really don't go together, and that JKR was basically doing a rescue job on Albus. As Alla points out, JKR has admitted that she finished OOTP in a rush and in the midst of a difficult pregnancy. I think what we have in many parts of OOTP is basically an early draft that she pushed out the door without thinking as carefully as she should have about what she was implying. The speech in HBP was basically a way of her saying "Errr...let's call that one a do-over, why don't we?" It will be interesting to see, if and when JKR does the "Revised Editions" if the speech in OOTP survives intact. Lupinlore From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 16:00:10 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051015160010.95186.qmail@web34902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141657 Laura wrote: "Can someone please direct me to which book (and page number, if you can) that this vanishing cabinet is mentioned? I guess I'm just not remembering it from my first read of HBP. Thanks :)" CH3ed: I think it was first mentioned be the twins in OotP. When Montague(of the Slytherine inquisitorial squad) tried to dock points from the twins they forced him into the vanishing cabinet... Montague disappeared for a while then showed up later in an utterly confused state. That is my recall. It may have appeared in earlier books, too. Can't check at the moment. My buddies are borrowing my first 4 books. :O) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 17:35:09 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:35:09 -0000 Subject: Every killing tears the soul? In-Reply-To: <20051015013913.79388.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141658 > > CH3ed: > I'd say the difference is in the context. In a state of war you are operating on the mutual assumption that if you don't kill the other side first, they will kill you. I think in the battlefield, unless the other side's soldier has given himself up and is disarmed and taken into custody as prisoner of war, you can safely label killing him self- defense. > Really? How about dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or any other bombing for that matter? How about besieged cities and their denizens? Would you label those as self-defence? a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 17:41:03 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:41:03 -0000 Subject: Tiaras (was Re: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141659 > Potioncat: > Molly thinks her great aunt will lend her tiara to Fleur. Hmm, wonder > if Aunt Muriel's tiara is missing? Is it just me or aren't there an > awful lot of tiaras all of a sudden? It just seems a bit odd that > someone in the Weasley family also has a tiara...from a plot > standpoint. > Why is it odd? The Weasleys may be blood traitors but they are still pure-bloods, the WW's "natural aristocracy". It would be odd if there were no heirlooms at all in the family. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 15 17:44:12 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:44:12 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141660 Laura asked: > > > > Can someone please direct me to which book (and page number, if you > > can) that this vanishing cabinet is mentioned? > > Geoff answered (with page numbers): > The two references I can recall are: > He never managed to get all the words out" said Fred, "due to the > fact that we forced him head-first into that Vanishing Cabinet on the > first floor." > Then, as though he [Malfoy] > could not help himself, he said, "I had to mend that broken Vanishing > Cabinet that no one's used for years. The one Montague got stuck in > last year." Potioncat asks: Didn't Peeves drop a vanishing cabinet on the floor above Filch's office so that Filch would let Harry go? Seems like Sir Nick played a part in it. Not sure though, which book it was. BTW, is there something in the RW a vanishing cabinet might correspond to? Is there a British phrase for an appliance that would match it? I mean, is JKR making a pun of sorts? From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 17:57:43 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:57:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141661 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > The blood needs to be explained because it contradicts something > we've been told: AK doesn't cause any sign of damage. If the > explanation is that the AK killed him and Dumbledore bled > posthumously, that doesn't move the plot forward. It's dramatically > dead. If the explanation is that the AK didn't work for some > reason, that moves the plot away from Guilty!Snape. I guess my reaction to the 'not moving the plot forward' based on that detail is: so what? There are lots of other ways to move the plot forward that don't rely upon that detail. Not everything is dramatically relevant. You've made a good case for how this detail could be sufficient for a result, but you can't make a case for necessity. > Pippin: > *Nice*? "If you are ready...if you are prepared." Whatever Snape > was in for that night, nice had nothing to do with it. > And Fudge showed no sign of wanting to throw Snape into Azkaban, > either, so what trouble was Snape trying to stay out of there? I don't credit Snape with the kind of foresight which many listies want to give to both him and Dumbledore. He likes his position as it is, but he surely doesn't know exactly what is coming in the future. Staying at Hogwarts is a vantage point for observation, and one which (as he notes) has benefits no matter what he has to do. For instance, he himself tells us about all the information he has to give Boss Voldie when he shows back up. Unless he's lying, of course. But arguably *preferable* to be in that situation, positioned and with both information and explanations, than to run like Karkaroff (and end up dead). It's probably been a preferable interim for him than elsewhere, as well. Hogwarts is insulated. Sure, Lucius Malfoy is on the board of governors until he screws up, so Snape has to deal with him, but other than that he has (I could argue) less contact with his former comrades-in-arms. Hogwarts is protected. Dumbledore is a very powerful patron. All bets only go off once the conflict starts up again--and Snape is in a unique position to see both sides of things. -Nora notes that one weakness of utilitarian arguments is the subjective estimation of harm and benefit... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 18:31:33 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:31:33 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141662 > >>Nora: > OFH provides an accounting for this event, although I know that > you don't like it. > Betsy Hp: I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and turning to work. (I'm rather surprised *you* like it Nora. ) I'm not sure if you support the OFH!Snape who's out to rule the WW himself (in which case you need to explain his lack of minions or any sort of political manuvering), or the OFH!Snape who just wants to live a comfortable life (in which case you have to explain why Snape stays in the game, instead of say, scampering off to Durmstang where he may well have become headmaster himself). (See Pippin's post on this particular subject.) And I do think OFH fails to account for Snape saving Dumbledore in one instance and then killing him in another. There's no obvious gain for either action, and the contradictory nature of the actions leave an OFH proponent making with two different arguments on their hands. (And then there's always the Unbreakable Vow to wrestle with. What's the direct OFH argument for that particular can of worms?) > >>Nora: > Oh, I think Neri's post is extremely relevant, because it > describes almost all the ways which fans read, and all the things > which fans do, to make patterns out of the information that we're > given. It points out quite well how little solid information is > there, and how much of the arguments are based on what we fill in > the blanks with. Betsy Hp: It points out the ambiguities and blanks, yes. But I don't see any examples of fan filled blanks. Unless, you're suggesting that there's no importance whatsoever in the dribs and drabs JKR has given us. Which would be weird, considering she used an entire book to make the point that Snape is a half-blood. I tend to be leery of theories that encourage ignoring cannon. > >>Nora: > Has Snape developed over the course of six books? > Betsy Hp: Yes. He went from an unpleasant teacher, to someone with a personal link to Harry's father, to Dumbledore's spy, to a double agent, to a child prodigy with a personality compatible with our hero, to our hero's most personal nemesis. I know you'll point out that it's not *Snape* developing here, rather Harry's (and therefore our) view of him. Which is exactly why JKR has been ambiguious with him. Snape doesn't really change, but as Harry learns more and more about him, the view of him does. Unlike with, say McGonagall, who is pretty much exactly as she seemed in PS/SS. JKR has managed to make Snape dynamic by making Harry's reaction to him dynamic. > >>Lupinlore: > > I would agree with Nora that we do see more of a character dynamic > in Ron than in Snape. Most of Snape's appearances are pretty > boring and predictable (i.e. here he comes, let's see how nasty > and childish he can be this time). > Betsy Hp: Hee! So that's why Snape provokes so many passionate posts from you? Because he's so very, very dull? Oh yes, scenes with Snape are so much wasted paper in which no plot moves forward, Harry has no reaction, and the readership hides their collective yawns. (That exlains the utter fandom silence on the man... wait...) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > To try and say that JKR is writing a morality that > > encourages sons to let their mothers die is an uphill battle I > > think. > >>Nora: > I wouldn't say that either. Betsy Hp: So you agree that Draco's worry for his mother's life was not an example of selfishness? > >>Nora: > But I would say she's writing a morality where one has to consider > very, very hard the consequences of self-absorption and what it > can do to other people. Betsy Hp: Wait, so not wanting your mother to die is an example of self- absorption? I'm confused. So, when Harry handed over the prophecy to stop Bella from torturing Neville, was he expressing a self- absorbed tendency to put his school tie over the safety of the WW? > >>Nora: > > The morality of the Potterverse does seem very social to me, > rewarding sincerity over authenticity. Betsy Hp: So you're saying Draco was not sincere in his worry about his mother? How do you figure that? > >>Betsy Hp: > > But then it doesn't set an impossibly high standard for any > > character to achieve to be on the side of good. They are none of > > them saints, so it's unwise to be too judgmental of them. The tar > > brushed on one character may well paint another. > >>Lupinlore: > It's a pretty big jump from "they are none of them saints" to "it's > unwise to be too judgmental." > Betsy Hp: How? Nora was arguing that Draco was selfish in putting his mother's safety over that of Dumbledore's. You start down that slippery slope and suddenly Harry is selfish in worrying about Neville's safety. James is selfish in giving his life (that of a strong solider) to protect his son (won't be of any worth to the Order for several years at least). I'm not seeing any great leaps here. The Potterverse is not made up of saints, so you have to be careful when you define an unforgivable sin. You may take down more characters than you really mean to. Betsy Hp From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 19:01:20 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:01:20 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141663 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and turning > to work. But it doesn't require *my* twisting and turning to work, which is what's different about it. Is that an acceptible difference? It's a profound one. It lets Snape be twisty and turny in and of himself, which is how he's written. Either DDM or ESE try to straighten him out into one line, whereby all actions have a single end. And in some variations of DDM, we get pages of tortuous explanation as to how Harry has totally and utterly misread everything, Snape was just acting when he freaked out in the Shack, he's playing game after game, etc. > (See Pippin's post on this particular subject.) Which I just answered, I do believe. Lazy afternoons give me the luxury to be caught up fully before posting. :) Why not run off to Durmstrang is the question of why emigrate if you don't have to. Karkaroff runs off, but Karkaroff has been grilled in front of a formal panel in a way that Snape, *because* he has Dumbledore as his patron, never had to go through. Ergo, we have a clear explanation for Karkaroff conviently leaving the country, and an explanation for why Snape wouldn't have to. If he's in Dumbledore's good favors, why give up his home country and a position ideal for keeping an eye upon events of the WW? > And I do think OFH fails to account for Snape saving Dumbledore in > one instance and then killing him in another. There's no obvious > gain for either action, and the contradictory nature of the actions > leave an OFH proponent making with two different arguments on their > hands. Lupinlore answered that: before the UV and in a direct encounter with Dumbledore, Snape helps out. Everything changes once Snape has tied his hands with the vow, and maybe also over the course of a year. People's perceptions of events can change a lot over a turbulent year. My own speculation wonders about Snape's discomfort with Dumbledore's unshakable conviction in Harry Potter. I can see Snape wrestling with the issue of "We're depending upon that obnoxious kid? We're screwed. But I'm not, necessarily..." > (And then there's always the Unbreakable Vow to wrestle with. > What's the direct OFH argument for that particular can of worms?) No strong opinions, but somewhat inclined (speaking only for myself) to view it as Snape getting himself into something he would have rather avoided. That's nicely thematic for him, in a way: Snape tends to think he knows more than he actually does, and he's not terribly flexible about realizing that. > Betsy Hp: > It points out the ambiguities and blanks, yes. But I don't see any > examples of fan filled blanks. Assumption of a redemption plot is a fan-filled blank, a way to fit the story we have into a model. All the readings of the flashes of memory we got in the Pensieve are fan ways of filling in the blanks which explain and connect them. Blanks are everywhere in the story, deliberately. And one of the last points at the bottom, the thing about fans now getting to explain even more startling events--there's your great example. Iser would love all of this. > I tend to be leery of theories that encourage ignoring cannon. Cannons are considerably more dangerous to one's health, yes. > I know you'll point out that it's not *Snape* developing here, > rather Harry's (and therefore our) view of him. Which is exactly > why JKR has been ambiguious with him. Snape doesn't really change, > but as Harry learns more and more about him, the view of him does. > Unlike with, say McGonagall, who is pretty much exactly as she > seemed in PS/SS. JKR has managed to make Snape dynamic by making > Harry's reaction to him dynamic. I do distinguish between revelation and development. As we argued before, these are very different modes and can thus be treated differently. Development is current action, revelation is the bringing-forth of what has always existed. > Betsy Hp: > So you agree that Draco's worry for his mother's life was not an > example of selfishness? It's still somewhat selfish, because it's something like "save the person who I care about as opposed to the man leading the war effort who can thus be responsible for saving hundreds of other people." And yes, ethically, I'd say that if you were in a situation where it was "save my mother" versus "save 200 other people" and you pick your mother, you're being selfish. There is, of course, the additional complicating factor that Draco's on the immoral side to begin with... I think Draco may have (*may* have) come to care about not wanting to kill other people. I'm really not sure that he's come to an understanding about things like enabling and accessory with intent, though--just an unwillingness to do it *himself*. -Nora suspects that McCoy or Carver both could get a conviction on Snape, for sure (Casey, not so likely) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 15 19:09:11 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:09:11 -0000 Subject: Fleshing out the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > - Kizor: > 8) Given that magic causes interference with electricity and wizards > very seldomly are at home with machinery, yet Shacklebolt was able > to hold a position in high Muggle government, could the Internet > provide a safe way for Muggle communication about the WW? > bboyminn: Who would be in communication with whom? Muggles already use the Internet extensively for communicating, we even communicate about the wizard word. If you are working in the framework of your story, then certainly the Internet would play a part. It is a fast, easy, intangible, and /uncensored/ method of communication. Also, I'm not sure I follow your logic on this question. It goes from magic interferring with electricity to Shacklebolt working for the Prime Minister to muggles using the internet. Not sure I see the connection. I suspect Shacklebolt is so good at his job because he's doing it with magic. But I don't see any connection to the internet or electricity. On the subject of electricity, I suspect primitive electical devices like a flashlight/torch would work at Hogwarts, but anything more complicated and anything electronic would be overwhelmed by the magic in the air and would not work. So, no computers, radios, TVs, PDAs, cell/mobile phones or regualar phones, steroes, microwaves, or other similar devices. I do suspect that while a cell phone would certainly not work around Hogwarts or Hogsmeade, it would work very marginally at Diagon Alley, but then that's just my opinion. Ceridwen: If I could jump in, trying to keep within the confines of the books... I think Kizor is exploring this for >Kizor: "I'll be writing a fanfic about a post-Voldemort movement against the Statute of Secrecy. Yes - the Muggle Liberation Front is here."< In The Other Minister, things which have been plaguing the Muggle Prime Minister (James Hacker? ;) ) - bridges being blown down by a freak hurricane, a chilling and depressing fog, two murders in the vicinity of 10 Downing Street and so on, turn out to be the work of the Wizarding World spilling over, at Voldemort's behest, into the greater Muggle world. The Statute of Secrecy is under threat. If Muggles find out about the WW, and in such a negative way, they are bound to be up in arms about it. What if Muggles, based on the events we know to have happened already, and others which might as VWII heats up, band together to fight the WW, a modern-day Witch and Wizard Hunt? Muggles are at a disadvantage, even with the information that their enemy really does exist. Therefore, they have to use whatever technological advances they can to gain an edge. We know that electric and electronic devices don't work at Hogwarts because of the magic that is there. So, as you mentioned, using a cellphone to report Wizarding activity near Hogsmeade probably won't work. But, could a movement communicate away from the WW areas, using computers to make reports, plan, and recruit to further the Muggle cause? Or, would witches and wizards who are savvy with Muggle devices infiltrate an on-line list as counter-spies? Could they, given their magic? This is what I think Kizor is going for, anyway. If I'm wrong, he or she can correct me. However, this is what I'll try to answer. I don't think it would be possible for Muggles to keep their electronic communications secret from individual witches and wizards merely by using the internet. I don't think a single witch or wizard has enough magical energy inside of him or her to seriously affect the computer or link. I do think the WW wouldn't imagine Muggles organizing to come after them, though, because of the Statute of Secrecy giving them a false sense of security. I could imagine the shock of a Half-Blood or Muggle witch or wizard who stumbles onto the organization's site, though. On a sort-of related tangent, the Dementor fog reminds me of all those atmospheric Jack the Ripper and other mystery films from the 1930s and 1940s. London in the late 1800s, suddenly filled with Dementor Fog (in fact, there was a toxic fog in London, I think it was during the 1800s, though I don't think it was around the time of Jack the Ripper), depression gripping the populace, mysterious murders and disappearances, strange goings-on... If someone doesn't do a fanfic about that, or hasn't done it already, I'll be surprised. Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Oct 15 19:25:20 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:25:20 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141665 Potioncat asks: > Didn't Peeves drop a vanishing cabinet on the floor above Filch's > office so that Filch would let Harry go? Seems like Sir Nick played a > part in it. Not sure though, which book it was. houyhnhnm: Ch. 8 in CoS. It is the same time that Harry discovered Filch's Kwikspell course after being dragged into Filch's office for tracking mud. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Filch was looking triumphant. "That vanishing cabinet was extremely valuable," he was saying gleefully to Mrs. Norris. "We'll have Peeves out this time, my sweet--" [...] Nearly Headless Nick came gliding out of a classroom. Behind him, Harry could see the wreckage of a large black and gold cabinet that appeared to have been dropped from a great height. "I persuaded Peeves to drop it right over Filch's office," said Nick eagerly. "Thought it might distract him--" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 15 19:53:34 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:53:34 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141666 > Betsy Hp: > I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and turning > to work. (I'm rather surprised *you* like it Nora. ) I'm not > sure if you support the OFH!Snape who's out to rule the WW himself > (in which case you need to explain his lack of minions or any sort > of political manuvering), or the OFH!Snape who just wants to live > a comfortable life (in which case you have to explain why Snape > stays in the game, instead of say, scampering off to Durmstang > where he may well have become headmaster himself). Jen: I re-read chap. two, honestly attempting to read the scene at face-value, and immediately found myself convoluting all over the place, particularly in regard to what we know about Voldemort & Dumbledore, to reconstruct prior information to meet the face-value reading of OFH!Snape in this chapter. For example: 1) Wormtail really was present to assist Snape with his important DE duties and even though he has taken to listening at the door, Snape keeps him on by his own choice. 2) Snape is valued above all other DE's and is the most trusted of them all. Voldemort, who trusts no one and values loyalty above all else, not only fully accepted Snape's accounting of his actions for 16+ years, but welcomed him back in the fold as his most trusted advisor. 3) Snape returned to LV on Dumbledore's orders and although Voldemort's was initially 'displeased' with his two-hour delay and had vowed to kill him in the graveyard, Snape was able to explain his absence well enough for a Voldemort to elevate him above the DE's who did return to the graveyard immediately. 4) All Dumbledore required to accept Snape back into the fold at Hogwarts and in the Order was a 'tale of deepest remorse' and his trusting nature was fooled into believing Snape's story. I could go on, but that's enough to work with. First, Voldemort and Dumbledore are the most abysmally foolish wizards of their age along with being the most powerful. Apparently a superb Occlumens can fool all the right people, and given Snape's extraordinary ability to read people and understand their weaknesses (?), he understands exactly which story to spin for both of these men. And not only is he accepted by both wizards, he's in a valued position with each one, and therefore carefully positioned to....do what exactly? A face-value reading of Snape would indicate we should understand his motivation for maneuvering himself into this exalted position or else there's something missing, and therefore we don't have face- value. > Betsy Hp: > I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and turning > to work. Nora: > But it doesn't require *my* twisting and turning to work, which is > what's different about it. Is that an acceptible difference? It's a > profound one. > It lets Snape be twisty and turny in and of himself, which is how > he's written. Either DDM or ESE try to straighten him out into one > line, whereby all actions have a single end. And in some variations > of DDM, we get pages of tortuous explanation as to how Harry has > totally and utterly misread everything, Snape was just acting when > he freaked out in the Shack, he's playing game after game, etc. Jen: So it is better to twisty turny every other character so Snape can fit into OFH? Unless I'm misreading, that's exactly what would need to happen. An overhaul of nearly every other major character and what we understand about their motivations and agendas up to this point. My opinion at this point is that DDM!Snape cannot be compared to ESE! Snape because we are talking about two very different leaders. ESE only allows for absolute loyalty to Voldemort with no personal agenda in play *except* avoidance of horrible consequences. At the most generous Snape could be used by Voldemort and is therefore kept around, but that would be the only exception. DDM allows for Snape to have some of his own motivations, loyalties and agendas but still in the end do the Right thing. You think everyone in the Order follows Dumbledore because he's doing the Right thing and they have no personal concerns or agendas? We've already seen that not to be true. Everyone we've met hopes to gain something personally by following Dumbledore. Betsy: > And I do think OFH fails to account for Snape saving Dumbledore in > one instance and then killing him in another. There's no obvious > gain for either action, and the contradictory nature of the actions > leave an OFH proponent making with two different arguments on their > hands. Nora: > Lupinlore answered that: before the UV and in a direct encounter > with Dumbledore, Snape helps out. Everything changes once Snape > has tied his hands with the vow, and maybe also over the course of > a year.People's perceptions of events can change a lot over a > turbulent year. My own speculation wonders about Snape's > discomfort with Dumbledore's unshakable conviction in Harry > Potter. I can see Snape wrestling with the issue of "We're > depending upon that obnoxious kid? We're screwed. But I'm not, > necessarily..." Jen: This I completely understand. Yes Snape got in over his head, and yes maybe his fear or fatigue or even the DADA curse got to him finally and he wants OUT. He hates Harry, he probably does view him as an inferior wizard and incapable of defeating Voldemort. DDM! Snape allows for ALL those things as long as Snape chooses the right path in the end. Maybe you are saying he took what he thought was the easy way out on the tower, but we know it *wasn't* the easy way out. He's a man without a country now. If he doesn't truly believe in Voldemort and has no motivation for following him, but he doesn't truly believe Harry is the only one who can destroy Voldemort, then killing Dumbledore had no personal value whatsoever to him! Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 19:53:47 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:53:47 -0000 Subject: Who sent Bellatrix and Co. after the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141667 > > -Nora has devilish thoughts about who sent the DE crew after the > Longbottoms: someone who knew those people, and knew about the > prophecy, and wanted either or both of them gone... > Carol responds: If Snape had wanted a Longbottom killed because of the Prophecy, wouldn't it have been Neville? JKR states in the Rumours section of her website that the Lestranges (and Barty Jr., whom she doesn't mention) were "very definitely sent after Neville's parents" and that they didn't know about the Prophecy. They would certainly have killed or tried to kill Neville if they had, and if the person who sent them knew about the Prophecy and was trying to thwart its fulfillment, he would have informed them that it was the child, not the adults, who posed the threat. And if he wanted them out of the way, he would have ordered them killed, not Crucioed. I admit that "sent" is a bit odd, but there's no reason to suspect any particular sender, especially since the word appears only on the website and not in the books, which seem to imply that they acted on their own initiative. Crouch states that they're charged with Crucioing the Longbottoms "believing [Frank] to have knowledge of the whereabouts of your exiled master" (GoF Am. ed. 595). Bellatrix herself corroborates this motive: "We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!" (GoF 596). And in HBP, she asks Snape where he was when the Dark Lord fell and why he didn't "make any attempt to find him" (HBP Am. ed. 596), a point reinforced by Voldemort himself: Voldemort "They were faithful. They went to prison rather than renounce me" (GoF 650). Bella distrusts Snape and certainly doesn't regard him as having any authority over her. If he had "sent" her to torture or kill the Longbottoms, either he or she would surely have mentioned it in "Spinner's End," when Bella is questioning his loyalty. Sounds to me as if Snape had nothing to do with the Crucioing of the Longbottoms. But if someone did send them (as indicated on the website but not in the books), I wonder who it could have been. Carol From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Oct 15 20:06:50 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:06:50 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141668 Jen: > If Book 6 gave us information about Dumbledore's boggart as > JKR said it did, could it be in that moment of pleading? Is > Dumbledore's greatest fear Harry dying before Voldemort, and his > plea to Snape was to finish the job Dumbledore started and can't > complete? houyhnhnm: This is the only interpretation of Dumbledore's pleading that makes sense to me. It is the only one that doesn't ring false to my ears in some way. We know of one argument between Snape and Dumbledore only because it was partially overheard by Hagrid (who may or may not have interpreted correctly what he heard). If they took such pains not to be overheard, there may have been any number of other arguments, none of which left Dumbledore completely satisfied that Snape would not go his own way after DD was gone. As someone else pointed out, Dumbledore almost nevers says "Please", but face to face with Snape on the tower, he knew it was his last chance to have any influence. Even on the first read through HBP, I didn't buy Snape's "Have you forgotten our orders. Potter belongs to the Dark Lord--" I thought it was just Snape improvising on the spot as usual. If so, then he did prove loyal to DD even after DD's death, and that would account for Dumbledore's closed eyes and his peaceful expression in the portrait, without having to resort to fake AKs or double silent spells. What I've been coming around to is a view of Snape in which he is both OFH and DDM. That is to say, there is an underlying loyalty to Dumbledore which has been in conflict with his alienation and anti-social personality throughout the six books, but at the end of HBP, he makes his choice. And it is for Dumbledore. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 15 20:25:52 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:25:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004401c5d1c6$a4efb5b0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141669 What I've been coming around to is a view of Snape in which he is both OFH and DDM. That is to say, there is an underlying loyalty to Dumbledore which has been in conflict with his alienation and anti-social personality throughout the six books, but at the end of HBP, he makes his choice. And it is for Dumbledore. houyhnhnm: Sherry now: i could almost buy both DDM and OFH Snape. But as I see it, if he did indeed make his choice on the tower, then he chose OFH. He didn't prove his loyalty to Dumbledore by then murdering him. That can never be justified or rationalized to me. I'll regret ever reading these books, if that's how it turned out, because killing another person should never be seen as a good thing. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 21:04:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:04:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141670 Pippin: > > The blood needs to be explained because it contradicts something we've been told: AK doesn't cause any sign of damage. If the explanation is that the AK killed him and Dumbledore bled posthumously, that doesn't move the plot forward. It's dramatically dead. If the explanation is that the AK didn't work for some reason, that moves the plot away from Guilty!Snape. > Nora: > I guess my reaction to the 'not moving the plot forward' based on > that detail is: so what? There are lots of other ways to move the > plot forward that don't rely upon that detail. Not everything is > dramatically relevant. You've made a good case for how this detail > could be sufficient for a result, but you can't make a case for > necessity. Carol: However, the blood is not the only incongruous detail that requires an explanation. So do the closed eyes (not seen in any AK victim--Cedric, the Riddles), the peaceful expression (I know you've argued that DD had come to terms with death, and I agree, but an AK wouldn't give him time to compose his expression--or close his eyes), the delay in releasing Harry from the freezing spell, the absence of a blinding flash (not the same as a "jet"--note that the flash from Wormtail's AK is so bright that Harry can see it through closed eyes and that a blinding flash of green light is his own first memory). And AKs don't send people over battlements. They fall instantly to the ground. And nonverbal spells have been emphasized throughout HBP, as have Snape's uncanny cleverness. Put all these together, or even examine them separately, and there is plenty of room to doubt that Snape's spell was an ordinary AK, or even an AK at all. And all of which moves the plot forward in a way that Harry's face value interpretation does not. Pippin: > > *Nice*? "If you are ready...if you are prepared." Whatever Snape was in for that night, nice had nothing to do with it. And Fudge showed no sign of wanting to throw Snape into Azkaban, either, so what trouble was Snape trying to stay out of there? > Nora: > I don't credit Snape with the kind of foresight which many listies want to give to both him and Dumbledore. He likes his position as it is, but he surely doesn't know exactly what is coming in the future. Staying at Hogwarts is a vantage point for observation, and one which (as he notes) has benefits no matter what he has to do. Carol: Certainly being at Hogwarts has benefits, some of which Snape cites in "Spinner's End." But as Pippin seems to be suggesting, the comfort level is considerably lessened in GoF when the Dark Mark starts to return. We see Karkaroff's hysteria over it, contrasted with Snape's calm determination to remain at Hogwarts ("Flee, then. Flee!") and we know that he reported the darkening mark to Dumbledore (Pensieve scene). As Snape tells Bellatrix in "Spinner's End," he had plenty of time to make up his mind what to do. Dumbledore's words, "If you are ready, if you are prepared" (along with the apprehension that prevents him from speaking for several minutes before Snape leaves on an unstated mission ("You know what I must ask you to do") imply that Dumbledore and Snape have indeed prepared for this mission, which we find out in HBP was returning to Voldemort. Almost certainly the explanations Snape gives in "Spinner's End" are the same explanations he had *prepared* for the inevitable moment when Voldemort returned and the DEs were summoned. None of this is reading too much into the text. It is all right there in canon. No foresight is required. Even Karkaroff, who has no plans for confronting Voldemort, knows what it means. Karkaroff flees. Snape, in contrast, has made his plans, knowing the mission on which DD would inevitably send him. He is "ready." He is "prepared." Neither his position at Hogwarts nor Dumbledore can protect him from Voldemort's vengeance against a follower he believes to be unfaithful. Only his own wits and his skill at Occlumency can save him from the death threatened by Voldemort in the graveyard scene (admittedly not witnessed by Snape himself but probably anticipated). *And* he shows Fudge his Dark Mark, as Pippin says, which he certainly did not need to do if all he wanted was to retain his comfortable position at Hogwarts. The only point in showing the Dark Mark, revealing himself as a one-time Death Eater (or reminding Fudge of his tainted past if Fudge already knows), is to prove to the obstinate Fudge that LV is really back--hardly the action of a loyal Voldemort follower or OFH!Snape. Carol, who believes that certain actions and clues cry out to be noticed and that a straightforward reading without interpretation is likely to be an incorrect reading From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 21:13:04 2005 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:13:04 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Tonks - LONG and rambling (was:Re: What's In A Patronus?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141671 I have read these theories with great interest, though, I admit, I do not believe them. With all due respect, I will try to open up the meta- question, which is: if you assume the theory that someone (Narcissa, or anyone else) is impersonating Tonks, can you theorize the author's motivation or idea behind such a story arc? The motivation behind Molly's, Lupin's, and Harry's words (with respect to Tonks) in HBP to all be either completely wrong or lies? Or the motivation for such a complex, multi-book story arc to spring up among minor characters, in the second-to-last book of the series? I am not seeking clarification upon the theory as far as the plot details, but as to how this idea would fit into the series the author has presented. Do you think it would fit in with the themes that JKR has presented so far? I don't think it would, but, it's not my theory. I am honestly interested in this. guz From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 21:39:59 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:39:59 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141672 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and > > turning to work. > >>Nora: > But it doesn't require *my* twisting and turning to work, which is > what's different about it. > > >>Jen: > So it is better to twisty turny every other character so Snape > can fit into OFH? Unless I'm misreading, that's exactly what would > need to happen. An overhaul of nearly every other major character > and what we understand about their motivations and agendas up to > this point. Betsy Hp: I agree with Jen that OFH sends not just Snape into a rather awkward game of twister. I'd also add that you *do* have to twist and turn yourself, Nora. Because you can't have a Snape so comfortable at playing the two most powerful wizards in the WW against the middle that he doesn't emigrate or join the Ministry or do something to take himself out of the game when it starts to heat up (as it obviously does in GoF) who is stupid enough to trap himself with the Unbreakable Vow. > >>Nora: > No strong opinions, but somewhat inclined (speaking only for > myself) to view it as Snape getting himself into something he > would have rather avoided. That's nicely thematic for him, in a > way: Snape tends to think he knows more than he actually does, and > he's not terribly flexible about realizing that. Betsy Hp: Which directly contradicts an OFH!Snape. If Snape is stupid enough to take the Vow (and I'm still not certain why an OFH!Snape would even consider such a thing, what is the gain?) then how on earth has he survived the last two years? Or the year or so before baby!Harry vaporized Voldemort? Your OFH!Snape seems based on Snape basically just trying to stay alive and comfortable. IOW, you don't seem to be arguing for an "out for his own power" version of the OFH. It's illogical for that version of Snape to *limit* his options. Which the UV does. So that requires you to come up with a rather twisty reason for Snape to do so, if you want to avoid contradictions. > >>Nora: > Either DDM or ESE try to straighten him out into one line, whereby > all actions have a single end. > Betsy Hp: Hmm. I'm not sure I buy this. DDM, especially I think, leaves plenty of room for human error or pathos. (Snape is loyal to Dumbledore but hates Sirius. Conflict will naturally occur, just as it did with Sirius.) OFH needs an almost superhuman version of Snape (he really is the most clever wizard in the world!). > >>Nora: > And in some variations of DDM, we get pages of tortuous > explanation as to how Harry has totally and utterly misread > everything, Snape was just acting when he freaked out in the > Shack, he's playing game after game, etc. Betsy Hp: Not all versions of DDM are created equal, I do agree. Especially if one is trying for a super shiny Snape. But Harry *does* misread things. The text makes it so obvious I think it's dangerous to take *all* of Harry's views and observations as gospel. Also, I really haven't seen anyone arguing that Snape was faking anything in the Shack. (I'm sure it exists, but it's certainly not popular amongst the DDM set.) Especially after OotP showed us that Snape had a pretty good reason for loosing his head so completely. Again, DDM *does* leave room for Snape to have his own issues. OFH! Snape is in less shape to afford them, I think. (Why would an OFH! Snape remain at Hogwarts once Lupin was hired on? What possible motivation would he have?) > >>Nora: > Assumption of a redemption plot is a fan-filled blank, a way to > fit the story we have into a model. Betsy Hp: And something argued by Dumbledore himself. So I'm not sure where fans are going out on a limb here. Yes, Dumbledore could turn out to be wrong, but it's not like there's no textual support for such a plot. > >>Nora: > All the readings of the flashes of memory we got in the Pensieve > are fan ways of filling in the blanks which explain and connect > them. Betsy Hp: They're certainly aren't made up whole-cloth. So I'm not sure why you're so eager to dismiss them. (Not conducive to an OFH!Snape? ) JKR gave us those flashes of memory and the pensieve scene and the great mystery of the Prank. Are you arguing that they're all meaningless? Yes, any readings of the scenes involve guesswork (just as associating Voldemort with the heir of Slytherin was guesswork in CoS) but it doesn't mean any and all readings are the product of an overheated imagination. > >>Nora: > Blanks are everywhere in the story, deliberately. > Betsy Hp: Because JKR *wants* to leave us guessing. I seriously doubt JKR won't give us answers. It goes against her style. I also expect that the answers will make sense. Just as the final reveal in CoS made sense. > >>Betsy Hp: > > So you agree that Draco's worry for his mother's life was not an > > example of selfishness? > >>Nora: > It's still somewhat selfish, because it's something like "save the > person who I care about as opposed to the man leading the war > effort who can thus be responsible for saving hundreds of other > people." > And yes, ethically, I'd say that if you were in a situation where > it was "save my mother" versus "save 200 other people" and you > pick your mother, you're being selfish. There is, of course, the > additional complicating factor that Draco's on the immoral side to > begin with... Betsy Hp: Ah. So you *do* agree than, that Harry behaved rather badly when he gave Lucius the prophecy to protect Neville. It's an... interesting philosophy but it's certainly not one shared with the Potterverse. JKR *does* think Harry did the right thing. Neville's life (and/or sanity) is rated higher than the faceless masses by JKR. And so when she wrote in the threat against Draco's mother (she could have easily written Voldemort only threatening Draco's life) she added a side of goodness to Draco before he even appears on the tower. Draco, suddenly made responsible for his mother's life, does the best he can to protect her. He's no longer "on the immoral side", he's being exploited by it. It's a huge difference. > >>Nora: > I think Draco may have (*may* have) come to care about not wanting > to kill other people. Betsy Hp: When has Draco killed before? On what do you base the killer!Draco starting point? I honestly don't think Draco moves on this issue. I *do* think it's the first time he's had to face it, but I think he never was a killer to begin with, otherwise the task would not have been so psychologically difficult for him. [Actually, this is something I rather admire about JKR. In a world of action films and thrillers galore (which I totally enjoy, don't get me wrong ), it's rather refreshing to have someone come from the standpoint that killing - even an enemy - is not, and should not be, an easy thing.] > >>Nora: > I'm really not sure that he's come to an understanding about > things like enabling and accessory with intent, though--just an > unwillingness to do it *himself*. Betsy Hp: I'm not exactly sure what this sentence means. I think you're saying that Draco may not yet realize he's morally culpable for opening the route to Hogwarts and for making those two attempts on Dumbledore's life (which nearly killed two people). And he might not. Though his fairly shattered pychological state (right at the moment of victory, too) speaks to something, I think. His need to clarify to Dumbledore that he did not intend Fenrir's presence is also meaningful. However, I think we'll have to wait until book 7 to get the entire fallout of the tower scene on Draco's moral growth. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 15 22:25:18 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:25:18 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: <004401c5d1c6$a4efb5b0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141673 Sherry wrote: > > i could almost buy both DDM and OFH Snape. But as I see it, if he did indeed make his choice on the tower, then he chose OFH. He didn't prove his loyalty to Dumbledore by then murdering him. That can never be justified or rationalized to me. I'll regret ever reading these books, if that's how it turned out, because killing another person should never be seen as a good thing. Carol responds: I don't think anyone's saying it's a good thing, only that it's the lesser of two evils (and perhaps a *necessary* thing if Harry and the WW are to survive). Snape himself, I'm sure, doesn't view it as a good thing. He sees it as repulsive and hates himself for doing it (as indicated by his expression). Perhaps he even hates Dumbledore for making him do it (if indeed DD believed that his self-sacrifice was necessary). In the HP books as in life, actions have consequences, many of them unintended. Harry's saving Pettigrew's life (surely a good deed despite PP's wickedness) results in Pettigrew's escape, allowing PP to restore Voldemort to his body. Good, in this instance, brings about evil. Voldemort's murder of Lily followed by the attempted murder of Harry (unquestionably evil deeds with evil intentions) brings about his own vaporization and an eleven-year respite for the WW. Evil brings about good. Dumbledore knows all this, just as he knows that sacrifices are sometimes necessary. He also knows that (in the Potterverse, at least) death is not the end of all things. (See my post on the concept of soul in the WW, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141562 ). That being the case, he is resigned to his death. In fact, it is much easier for him than for Snape, who has to resign himself to perform the sacrifice, without which neither Harry nor Draco is likely to survive. He has a personal obligation, not to mention the powerful motive provided by the UV, to save Draco, and a much more important obligation--to the WW itself--to save Harry. And the only way to do so is to kill Dumbledore. So Dumbledore's death is not good in itself. It is necessary because of its consequences. Like Lily before him, he is dying to save Harry. But unlike LV, whose only motive in murdering Lily and trying to kill Harry is to insure his own immortality (the fact that he failed is not relevant), Snape's motive (as I read it) is to obey and serve Dumbledore to the last in order to make the continued fight against Voldemort possible. In that reading, Snape's action, like the killing of an enemy soldier in a war, is neither good nor evil in itself, or rather a necessary evil. It is the sacrifice of his own mentor for the common good. Much better, of course, if the multiple causes that led to DD's death could have been avoided (if Snape had not accepted the DADA position or taken the UV, to name two). But once he enters the tower, neither he nor Dumbledore has any choice in the matter. I can't see how Snape's choice can be read as OFH! since it deprives him of his job, his freedom, and his one trusted friend. He, too, is making a sacrifice that may well cost him his life as well. He does not benefit personally in any way. He has instead lost everything. His life is no longer worth living and indeed, as far as I can see, can serve only one purpose--to do whatever he can to help bring about the fall of Voldemort. Nevertheless, *no one* (including me) is calling his action "good." But neither is it evil *if* he deliberately chose to save the young wizard who could defeat Voldemort rather than the old wizard who, for all his wisdom and goodness and (now greatly diminished) power, could not. Carol, who hopes she is never forced to choose one life over another or the common good over the life of someone who has trusted and perhaps loved her From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 15 23:42:06 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:42:06 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141674 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > Assumption of a redemption plot is a fan-filled blank, a way to fit > the story we have into a model. Pippin: Never mind redemption, then. What about reform? Snape is the only character who is supposed to have turned over a new leaf and tried to keep it turned. Karkaroff expressed some remorse when he got caught, but it didn't go as far as offering his service to Dumbledore. He made his deal and scarpered off to Durmstrang, where, according to Sirius, he taught the Dark Arts to every student who passed through. If Snape never was sincere about repenting, or backslid to the point where he betrayed and murdered his mentor, then it's hard to see how he could prove himself now except by dying. That says the only good reformed Death Eater is a dead reformed Death Eater, and I just don't think JKR is going that way. But I could be wrong. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Oct 16 01:02:49 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:02:49 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV) In-Reply-To: <004401c5d1c6$a4efb5b0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141675 Sherry now: > i could almost buy both DDM and OFH Snape. But as > I see it, if he did indeed make his choice on the tower, > then he chose OFH. He didn't prove his loyalty to > Dumbledore by then murdering him. That can never be > justified or rationalized to me. houyhnhnm: But if it was what Dumbledore wanted--for Harry to be saved even at the sacrifice of his own life--then what Snape did wasn't murder. This point has been argued over and over and it doesn't seem to make any impression whatsoever. Perhaps it is because, in the real world, it is hard to imagine anyone being cold-blooded enough to do such a thing without being evil. But can you imagine slicing a person down the middle with a knife? Yet this is what surgeons do by the thousands every day. Can you imagine cutting off someone's limb without anesthesia? Rescue workers have had to do such things to free victims of earthquakes. Maybe you and I couldn't do such a thing, but it's a good thing there are some people who can. And let's not forget, the Potterverse is not the real world. It is an imaginary world populated by people who live to be a hundred and fifty years old and who can be dropped on their heads from great heights with no apparent harm. It is not reasonable to expect them to be as squeamish as RL human beings. On the other hand, maybe what we are dealing with is two value systems with no common ground--one which says the sentimentality of the moment is the highest good, the other which says the rightness of an action is determined by the effect it produces. Sherry: > I'll regret ever reading these books, if that's how it > turned out, because killing another person should never > be seen as a good thing. houyhnhnm: Well there are lots of other books to read, then. So many books, so little time. From staffordbly at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 00:49:08 2005 From: staffordbly at yahoo.com (staffordbly) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:49:08 -0000 Subject: Help me understand Dumbledore's actions.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141676 There's a couple of things that don't add up to me in HBP : 1) Why didn't Dumbledore boot Draco from school after poisoning two students? Why did he allow him to stay and eventually find a way to let DE into the school and lead to Dumbledore's death? If, as Dumbledore says, he KNEW what Draco was up to, why allow him to get that far? If, as Dumbledore says, he also knew that Draco could face death from Lord V if he failed in his mission, than bootng him from school would of given him a perfect excuse for why he couldn't carry it out.....or even if it DID lead to Draco's death why spare him and allow two students to almost get killed, DE getting into Hogwarth's and Dumbledore's own demise? Don't make sense. 2) Why did Dumbledore immobile Harry when they raced back to Hogwarth's at the end? If he knew it was Draco, as he implies, certainly he and Harry could of taken care of him...and even had a fair chance at handling the unknown amount of DE's, since Phoenix memebers were on hand...plus Snape would help. HELP! Staffordbly From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Oct 15 23:56:01 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:56:01 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141677 > Betsy Hp: > I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and turning to > work. (I'm rather surprised *you* like it Nora. ) Lupinlore: What twisting and turning? OFH! is the only view that allows Snape to be Snape and NOT try to twist and turn either the viewpoint or the plot to fit some kind of interpretation of his actions. When Snape is shown being good, he is being good. When shown being evil, he is being evil. Betsy Hp: > And I do think OFH fails to account for Snape saving Dumbledore in > one instance and then killing him in another. Lupinlore: Certainly it accounts for it. Snape before the vow believes saving DD is in his own best interests, and so he does so. Snape after the vow finds that it's either him or DD, so DD goes. Betsy Hp: Which would be weird, considering she used an entire book > to make the point that Snape is a half-blood. Lupinlore: Did she? That was a piece of information that we learned in the sixth book. However, it seems that the fact of Snape being a half- blood was scarcely the main point of the plot. Indeed, it was almost a throwaway bit of info there at the end. Betsy Hp: > > I know you'll point out that it's not *Snape* developing here, > rather Harry's (and therefore our) view of him. Which is exactly > why JKR has been ambiguious with him. Snape doesn't really change, > but as Harry learns more and more about him, the view of him does. Lupinlore: Exactly. And that is where DDM and ESE both fall down, in that they allow no change in Snape. He has remained essentially the same over the last sixteen years. > > Betsy Hp: > Hee! So that's why Snape provokes so many passionate posts from > you? Because he's so very, very dull? Oh yes, scenes with Snape > are so much wasted paper in which no plot moves forward, Harry has > no reaction, and the readership hides their collective yawns. Yep. Snape is a Johnny-one-note of a character, and DDM or ESE make him even duller, not to mention making him so cheesy that I'm surprised Wormtail doesn't devour him whole. But fan positions that attempt to justify his teaching methods, or to make him rather than Harry the true hero of the story, are not. Those require extremely sharp responses. Betsy Hp: > I'm not seeing any great leaps here. The Potterverse is not made up > of saints, so you have to be careful when you define an unforgivable > sin. Why? Every character being not-a-saint does not make all not-saints equal. Some are clearly guilty of sins of which others are not. And it may be that some of those sins are unforgiveable. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 16 00:07:15 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:07:15 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141678 Pippin wrote: > > If Snape never was sincere about repenting, or backslid > to the point where he betrayed and murdered his mentor, then it's > hard to see how he could prove himself now except by dying. > That says the only good reformed Death Eater is a dead reformed Death Eater, and I > just don't think JKR is going that way. But I could be wrong. > > But Snape is hardly the only character in whom redemption or reform might play a role. We have been told that Wormtail has a role to perform, and his debt to Harry will be important. Draco's story arc must come to a close as well. Both of these characters, along with Snape, are candidates for redemption. Are all of them going to be reformed/redeemed? That would be overkill of a high magnitude. Two of the three I could see, but even that seems like pushing it. Otherwise we'll have "the mass revolt of the good DEs" to wade through. Lupinlore From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 16 02:14:44 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:14:44 -0000 Subject: OFH and DDM ? WAS Re: Draco, the UV, and the First Time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141679 > Sherry wrote: > > > > i could almost buy both DDM and OFH Snape. But as I see it, if he > did indeed make his choice on the tower, then he chose OFH. He > didn't prove his loyalty to Dumbledore by then murdering him. That > can never be justified or rationalized to me. > Carol responds: > I don't think anyone's saying it's a good thing, only that it's the > lesser of two evils (and perhaps a *necessary* thing if Harry and > the WW are to survive). Snape himself, I'm sure, doesn't view it as > a good thing. He sees it as repulsive and hates himself for doing it > (as indicated by his expression). Valky: This is what adds up to me both that it *was* a good thing and that it *wasn't* Snape's decision. And that's were I draw the dotted line somewhere in OFH/DDM Snape. In regard about that murky place which is Dumbledore trusting Snape IMHO, drawing the line there makes the most things self evident with less explanations needed. I am absolutely open to any scrutiny other listees want to put that under BTW, I am sure it will withstand quite a beating. :D Carol: > Perhaps he even hates Dumbledore for > making him do it (if indeed DD believed that his self-sacrifice was > necessary). Valky: Here's a good example of things being self evident. OFH DDM Snape would be *surprised* to be let off _almost_ lightly by Dumbledore insisting he strike the blow. As an OFH man he will have been at the very least *thinking* he might just fulfill the vow and save himself, but as DD's Man he would also be disgusted with himself while doing it because an OFH man would have considered at least a half dozen other ways to keep his set-up at Hogwarts intact while avoiding the penalty. Sure they'd be more risky to pull off, probably virtually impossible in most cases, but they were options that he'd somewhat rather take than kill someone he respects and has been loyal to even though he'd like most to save himself in any case. The conflict of OFH DDM Snape IMHO works brilliantly in the Tower scene. When Snape arrives on the Tower, all the elements we see in him, faint surprise, keeping up the spy act, and finally shooting an AK that doesn't AK like it should.. the reasoning behind it is all self evident, I think. Placing and OFH DDM Snape before Dumbledore in the tower, would explain him sweeping the scene with his eyes to see what he could salvage, it gives the triage/cold equations shoulder room to squeeze in too (although the equation is balanced by Dumbledore's calculations rather than Snape's), it doesn't disregard the parallel between Harry's feelings when hurting Dumbledore and Snape's expression, and it certainly doesn't harbour strict expectations of the Avada Kedavra spell to be canon correct or soul splitting nor does it assume that Dumbledore was fooled by Snape. It looks like this - Snape enters the room aware of his own predicament with the Unbreakable Vow. He takes a look around to see what is really going on, what Dumbledore is planning to do to save them all which I believe he'd expect would be evident to him after 16 years of employment, and what Dumbledore expects him to do which he is sure Dumbledore has figured will save Severus Snape too, he finds no evidence that there is a plan to save Dumbledore and in his surprise he pushes Malfoy roughly out of the way and looks Dumbledore over, perhaps even asking Dumbledore 'what have I missed here?'. Dumbledore makes it fairly obvious to him that he's missed nothing and it's all exactly what it seems, which, Snape has deduced practically, means Dumbledore is not to be protected. So Snape, really not liking what is left to him to do, shoots what looks like a killing curse at Dumbledore. It hardly matters if it works correctly or even is killing curse, since appearances do wonders at a time like this, he's convinced enough people that it's been done, and the curse doesn't have anything over him anymore because Dumbledore has gone ahead and made it unecessary to actually *kill* him. He's poisoned, he's wandless and he asks no protection, he's dead anyway, vow fulfilled. Snape may not understand why (I don't myself, but DD has his reasons for what he does), nor even care since the vow is now off his back and he's free to choose his next move quickly, which he does. You know after looking at it this way it makes me wonder if one of Dumbledore's motives wasn't saving Snape from his vow too. Valky Opening another can of worms.. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 02:21:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:21:55 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141680 > > >>Jen: > > So it is better to twisty turny every other character so Snape > > can fit into OFH? Unless I'm misreading, that's exactly what would > > need to happen. An overhaul of nearly every other major character > > and what we understand about their motivations and agendas up to > > this point. Alla: How would it send every major character twisiting and turning, Jen? I am very confused now. In what aspect? In a sense that they trusted Snape? If it so, it was clear enough to me in HBP that they really did not, they trusted Dumbledore's judgment, first and foremost. Would it make Dumbledore more fallible? Yes, quite tragic that, I agree, but also very sympathetic to me. Maybe you were talking about different twist and turns? If yes, could you clarify? > Betsy Hp: > Also, I really haven't seen anyone arguing that Snape was faking > anything in the Shack. (I'm sure it exists, but it's certainly not > popular amongst the DDM set.) Especially after OotP showed us that > Snape had a pretty good reason for loosing his head so completely. Alla: LOL! Have you read Magic Dishwasher? > > >>Nora: > > Assumption of a redemption plot is a fan-filled blank, a way to > > fit the story we have into a model. > > Betsy Hp: > And something argued by Dumbledore himself. So I'm not sure where > fans are going out on a limb here. Yes, Dumbledore could turn out > to be wrong, but it's not like there's no textual support for such a > plot. Alla: As far as I can remember nowhere in the books Dumbledore says that Snape's story will be a redemption story AT THE END of all that. He says that Snape is no more DE than he is, he says that Snape felt remorse when he came back, but that is in the PAST, not in the present. If professor Trelawney were saying that Snape will end up at the side of Light, that would be a different story :-) What we have are hints that Snape's story can go this way, IMO. but we also have PLENTY of hints that his story can go the different path. Some of those which come to me right away - VERY strange insistence that kids were confunded in PoA, which could be interpreted as Snape protecting them of course, but can also be interpreted as desire to stop them to tell the truth about Sirius' being innocent, Harry's feeling weaker after Occlumency lessons, which could be intepreted as I guess as normal reaction after Occlumency lessons, sorry don't remember any others right away, and cannot come up with positive one myself, but also can be interpreted as Snape deliberately opening Snape mind for Voldemort, oh, and of course Snape saying himself - I spinned him a TALE of deepest remorse. Of course don't forget Emmelyne Vance , as far as we know - she IS dead and Snape claims credit. The blanks can be filled either way, IMO. The support for Non- redeemable Snape in the text is at least just as strong as redeeemable one, but for some reason the HUGE majority of fans ( and my data can be skewed of course, no official research or anything :- )) filled it as Redeemed!Snape. I DO see redeeemable Snape still, but my Rdeemable!Snape did commit a murder on the Tower > > > >>Nora: > > All the readings of the flashes of memory we got in the Pensieve > > are fan ways of filling in the blanks which explain and connect > > them. > > Betsy Hp: > They're certainly aren't made up whole-cloth. So I'm not sure why > you're so eager to dismiss them. (Not conducive to an OFH!Snape? > ) JKR gave us those flashes of memory and the pensieve scene and > the great mystery of the Prank. Are you arguing that they're all > meaningless? Yes, any readings of the scenes involve guesswork > (just as associating Voldemort with the heir of Slytherin was > guesswork in CoS) but it doesn't mean any and all readings are the > product of an overheated imagination. Alla: I don't think Nora is dismissing them ( sorry, Nora please correct me if I am wrong). I think she is saying that they could be filled EITHER way. The best case of course is James as bully and Snape as victim during SEVEN years of their schooling, even better is that James' motivations AND Snape motivations are being described with so much clarity after reading one scene, which may not even be complete, IMO. I again have to cite Vmonte's example - if Draco puts the scene at the end of GoF in his Pensieve starting the moment Gryffs cursed him, he comes out as poor innocent victim and Gryffs as a gang of bullies. Now, I know you sympathise with Draco and don't think that he deserved to get cursed, but wouldn't you agree at least that HE provoked Gryffindors by coming to their appartment and insulting Cedric,who just died and threatening Hermione's life? I don't want to get into discussion whether his punishment was adequate or not, what I am saying that if we were to see that scene from the moment Gryffs cursed Draco, we were BOUND to fill the blanks incorrectly? I think Pensieve scene could be the example of the same. JMO of course, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 02:31:21 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:31:21 -0000 Subject: Help me understand Dumbledore's actions.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141681 "staffordbly" wrote: > > There's a couple of things that don't add up to me in HBP : > > 1) Why didn't Dumbledore boot Draco from school after poisoning two students? > If, as Dumbledore says, he KNEW what Draco was up to, why allow him to get that far? zgirnius: I think DD was relying on Snape to ensure that Draco's attempts would not get out of hand. And in fact, I would argue that while Snape failed to gain Draco's trust, he *did* convince Draco to cease his random and dangerous attacks at Sluggie's Christmas party, after the cursed necklace nearly killed Katie Bell. (The poison that got Ron was probably put in place before this conversation. Draco has hoped Sluggie would give it to DD for Christmas.) There were no new attempts (except for the ongoing effort to fix the cabinet). And I believe DD 100% when he says he believed it was impossible to get DEs into the castle. DD's motives were first, concern for Draco, including a hope that he could be 'turned around'. It is possible also that the Malfoy family may have some importance to DD that we do not know about yet. (Do Lucius, Narcissa, or her sister Bella know anything about any other Horcruxes, for example?) This (completely hypothetical, at this point) value of the Malfoys could also help to explain why Snape agreed to a UV at Narcissa's request, and why DD appeared ready to put the entire family Malfoy in his own version of a witness protection program. > > 2) Why did Dumbledore immobile Harry when they raced back to Hogwarth's at the end? If > he knew it was Draco, as he implies, certainly he and Harry could of taken care of > him...and even had a fair chance at handling the unknown amount of DE's, since Phoenix > memebers were on hand...plus Snape would help. zgirnius: I think he knew it was *only* Draco. He believed (rightly, IMO) that he could handle Draco even wandless (I don't mean wandless magic, I mean the power of persuasion and DD's moral force). He was sure of his ability to talk Draco out of murder, out of the DEs, and into hiding. (It seemed to me he succeeded...and immediately thereafter Fenrir and 3 DEs showed up, natch!) But he could *never* do this if Harry was there. Can you imagine Harry staying still while Draco enters the scene? What made that conversation work was that DD was truly defenseless, Draco knew it, and this made him have to face the fact that he really did not want to kill DD. Facing Harry and an armed DD, he would be certain he would fail, and the realization he *wants* that would never come. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 02:47:16 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:47:16 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? was: Harry's emotions his strength or his weakness? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141682 > > CH3ed: I like Alla's line of thinking. I think DD was neither a > puppet-master nor a mother hen. He foresaw potential outcomes of > things well, but he was willing to give those he dealt with the > chance to rise to the occasion .... or not, (major snippage here by Ginger) Lupinlore responded: (Ginger snipping wildly again) > So, although it is possible to weave the two speeches together (and I > think you have done it about as well as it can be done) it's forced > and unfortunately doesn't leave Albus looking very much better than > he did after OOTP. I agree with Alla that the speeches really don't > go together, and that JKR was basically doing a rescue job on Albus. > As Alla points out, JKR has admitted that she finished OOTP in a rush > and in the midst of a difficult pregnancy. I think what we have in > many parts of OOTP is basically an early draft that she pushed out > the door without thinking as carefully as she should have about what > she was implying. The speech in HBP was basically a way of her > saying "Errr...let's call that one a do-over, why don't we?" It will > be interesting to see, if and when JKR does the "Revised Editions" if > the speech in OOTP survives intact. Now Ginger's take on things: I don't think that DD's 2 speeches necessarily contradict each other if one takes into consideration when and where and to whom they were given. The OoP speech takes place as DD is talking to Harry. The Dursleys are not the main point of that interview. Sirius' death, the revelation of the prophecy, the MoM accepting LV's return, etc. all have a higher priority than all that. *Why* DD left Harry with his charming relations is the main point, not how they treated Harry. Harry needs to understand that leaving him there was necessary, not that it was bad. He already had that part figured out. At this point, Harry only needs to know that the Dursleys were the lesser of 2 evils. Moving on to HBP (which is actually only a short time later to DD and Harry), we now have a different situation and a different audience. DD is now talking to the Dursleys. The point of that conversation is to tell them that Harry will be needing room and board only one more time. The Durselys haven't figured out that they have treated Harry badly. They need to be told, and I must admit I thouroughly enjoyed the way in which DD did so. For those who know my views on the subject and think I'm jumping to the other side of the fence, let me explain. I have always been in the camp that the Dursleys weren't the worst people on the planet. I didn't *like* the way they treated Harry, but I didn't think they were bad enough to have to face the firing squads, fire and brimstone, or social workers with explanatory pamphlets with which others were willing to bombard them. As Steve (bboy_mn) so well put it: There's abuse and Abuse. I did think that they deserved a nice humiliation (and possibly a bi+ch slap), and as I said, I loved it. So I don't think that DD's opinion changed so much as his audience did, although I do wonder if, after his interview with Harry in OoP, DD realized that Harry needed to hear it as much as the Dursleys. Ginger, who also liked MM's mentioning that Neville's Gran failed her charms OWL. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 03:11:29 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:11:29 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? /What does Dumbledore wanted on the Tower? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141683 Ginger: *Why* DD left Harry with his > charming relations is the main point, not how they treated Harry. > Harry needs to understand that leaving him there was necessary, not > that it was bad. He already had that part figured out. At this > point, Harry only needs to know that the Dursleys were the lesser of > 2 evils. Alla: If you are right, I don't think JKR made this message clear at all. IF Harry only needed to know that Dursleys were lesser of two Evils. The part of " I knew you would suffer and I knew you were facing ten dark difficult years " ( paraphrase) does not make Dursleys sound like lesser of two Evils to me. Am I making sense? If Dumbledore would have only said that the only reason I left you there was because otherwise you would be dead, then sure, lesser of two Evils it was. But he did not make that clear to me. But Dumbledore was also admitting his own culpability IMO and somehow I am not sure that this is what JKR intended to convey. I completely agree with Lupinlore that if JKR were ever to get to revised editions of the books, I think " I knew you would suffer" is almost bound to dissapear completely. JMO of course. Ginger: > I have always been in the camp that the Dursleys weren't the worst > people on the planet. I didn't *like* the way they treated Harry, > but I didn't think they were bad enough to have to face the firing > squads, fire and brimstone, or social workers with explanatory > pamphlets with which others were willing to bombard them. As Steve > (bboy_mn) so well put it: There's abuse and Abuse. > > I did think that they deserved a nice humiliation (and possibly a > bi+ch slap), and as I said, I loved it. Alla: IMO the only reason Dursleys did not face social workers, trials, legal system, etc, is because this is not the type of book JKR writes ( I mean that she does not have the time to deal with all that), but the LABELS Dumbledore ( and I want to believe JKR too) marks their behaviour with, makes me believe that she is clear that they do deserve all that and worse. Sorry, Guinger! :-) " He has known nothing but neglect and cruelty at your hands" - HBP, p.55 That tells me a lot. I think that was another example of vicarious retribution or carmic punishment. JKR does not have time to deal with Dursleys properly, so she let Albus nicely humiliate them and just as you I loved it. Guinger: > So I don't think that DD's opinion changed so much as his audience > did, although I do wonder if, after his interview with Harry in OoP, > DD realized that Harry needed to hear it as much as the Dursleys. Alla: Sorry, but IMO that would make Dumbledore sound as first rate hyppocrite, so I am hoping that this was JKR backing off, not Albus singing a different tune because of different audience only. > > Ginger, who also liked MM's mentioning that Neville's Gran failed her > charms OWL. Alla: That was sweet, isn't it? :) > > houyhnhnm: > > But if it was what Dumbledore wanted--for Harry to be saved even at > the sacrifice of his own life--then what Snape did wasn't murder. > This point has been argued over and over and it doesn't seem to make > any impression whatsoever. Alla: Well, the point that Dumbledore would not ask anyone to risk their soul in order to help out in his sacrifice also had been argued over and over and it also does not make any impression whatsoever. Maybe because those points are at the heart of the opposing Snape's interpretations and they are bound not to make any impressions untill JKR says so? :-) Personally ( and forgive me for referencing my favorite Sigune essay about Snape again) I consider myself to be able to be reasonably convinced by some theories ( I think that more often than not our opinions on the major issues stay the same, despite reading fantastically crafted arguments of the opposing side) and before Sigune came along, I considered Snape to be absolutely beyond redemption after HBP. She convinced me, I see Trapped!Snape now, I see Snape who honestly thought that he has no other choice but to kill Dumbledore, while still wanting to help the Light. It does not make him less culpable, but at least it cam make him suitable for redemption IMO. But to see Dumbledore asking Snape to do it, for me means to turn my whole reading of the canon, of the spirit of the books as I read them upside down. Does it mean that it is not going to happen? Of course it could, those are JKR's books after all and it is a legitimate route to travel, but for me right now it will require to do too much twisting in my head, so I prefer not to, untill JKR says so, of course. I prefer to see Dumbledore as someone who would not take a risk of destroying the soul of another human being, even at the time of war, even if that human being soul was already hurt before. Maybe JKR sees him as ruthless general first and foremost, of course. It is not something that would make me terribly dissapointed, because nothing could compare with how dissapointed I was with Dumbledore after the end of OOP, but maybe not. Two more years and we will know. :-) JMO, Alla From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 00:59:51 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Characters and Consequences? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051016005951.5449.qmail@web34908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141684 > CH3ed: So DD knew Harry would suffer living with the Dursleys, but it would be the kind of suffering that builds characters." Lupinlore answered: "However, unfortunately that lands Albus right back in the cauldron I think JKR was trying to get him out of. Namely, he comes off as a high-handed and manipulative old man who presumes to decide that a childhood of suffering "builds character." Not an attractive figure, and hardly an "epitome of goodness." It also once again resurrects questions about why he didn't actively intervene at the Dursleys, for instance to get Harry out of the closet, etc. He even comes off as something of a hypocrite in HBP, scolding the Dursleys for something he knew they would do." CH3ed now: Albus D. did indeed have his flaws. I think that is what JKR intended, tho. I think through out the series she has taught the children who read her books more of what the real world would be like than books that do go for Godly Good versus Absolute Evil themes like Narnia. I don't think JKR wants us to put Albus D. on the pedestal, but to admire him for being a very good man who respected others free will. That Albus D. was flawed in being too detached from the emotional side of things because he was so left-brain oriented only makes him more relatable to real life. A wizarding version of the absent-minded genius professor, kind of. I think he would have came of looking like a hypocrite for scolding at the Dursleys for treating Harry badly IF Albus D. himself would have done exactly what the Dursleys had done. But since I think Albus D. would have done it differently (he would have treated Harry like his own son) he didn't come out from that scene looking like a hypocrite to me at all. CH3ed From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 16 03:48:47 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:48:47 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141685 Jen: > So it is better to twisty turny every other character so Snape > can fit into OFH? Unless I'm misreading, that's exactly what > would need to happen. An overhaul of nearly every other major > character and what we understand about their motivations and > agendas up to this point. > Alla: > How would it send every major character twisiting and turning, > Jen? I am very confused now. In what aspect? In a sense that they > trusted Snape? If it so, it was clear enough to me in HBP that > they really did not, they trusted Dumbledore's judgment, first and > foremost. Would it make Dumbledore more fallible? Yes, quite > tragic that, I agree, but also very sympathetic to me. > Maybe you were talking about different twist and turns? If yes, > could you clarify? Jen: I referred you back to my post off-list Alla, to explain the above snippet taken from a larger canon argument, but actually I can answer your question more clearly by just being blunt ;). Basically what I was trying to show in post #141666 and perhaps wasn't completely clear about is I think none of the readings for Snape are straightforward because JKR has made certain of that. Some of us prefer to make a few backflips over the tower scene and some of us prefer to make them over Snape's statements and actions and chapter two, but ALL the readings require extrapolation and speculation at some point to make them square away. If you like OFH, hey, there are parts of that which I see the value in particularly when dissecting the tower scene. If you like DDM, that one explains the events in chap. 2 and the Unbreakable Vow without twisting the characters of Voldemort and Dumbledore. I'm just wondering why there HAS to be a straightforward reading at this point, what is the purpose? So we won't get our feelings hurt if JKR says, "Ah, well, I warned you didn't I?" I'll take my chances and enjoy my speculation, and continue to point out to others who comment on my back-flips--"well, explain your extrapolation of how Snape was able to fool the two greatest wizards in the world without telling me ANY information which you don't find in black and white in the text." Why not just say you *like* OFH!Snape and feel it explains things best? Why take it one step futher and insist it's the "Straight-forward reading" when none of them are? I have yet to read one post, including my own, which doesn't at some point draw conclusions based on something outside the text we have at the moment. That's all I'm saying. I don't understand the point of deigning one theory to be somehow higher on the scale because it requires *fewer* convolutions than anything else. A convolution is a convolution no matter how you slice it. Jen, who can't remember how the idea of a straight-forward reading ever came into play to begin with, but is starting to miss the days when theories got to play loose and fast and didn't require some literary litmus test. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 16 05:09:14 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 05:09:14 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141686 > Pippin wrote: > > > > > If Snape never was sincere about repenting, or backslid > > to the point where he betrayed and murdered his mentor, then it's > > hard to see how he could prove himself now except by dying. > > That says the only good reformed Death Eater is a dead reformed > > Death Eater, and I just don't think JKR is going that way. > > But I could be wrong. > > >> Lupinlore: > But Snape is hardly the only character in whom redemption or reform > might play a role. We have been told that Wormtail has a role to > perform, and his debt to Harry will be important. Draco's story arc > must come to a close as well. Both of these characters, along with > Snape, are candidates for redemption. Are all of them going to be > reformed/redeemed? That would be overkill of a high magnitude. Two > of the three I could see, but even that seems like pushing it. > Otherwise we'll have "the mass revolt of the good DEs" to wade > through. > Valky: I think you answer your own question here Lupinlore. We *have* seen general DE revolt, of sorts, what did they all do when he *died* at Godrics Hollow? 3/4 of Voldemorts followers and allies turned over like so many pancakes, the WW was blinded by the golden glow. In the year before he fell we at least know Regulus left him and Snape betrayed him at least once. We know for certain that Voldemort doesn't inspire a whole lot of loyalty among his followers. Even his most loyal Bellatrix who proudly declared and suffered 13+ years for her allegiance knows she has managed only a 'fine gesture' under the basic DE creed. Snape has more favour than her for working for the other side in comfortable employment. I'd personally be surprised if the end of book seven *isn't* punctuated by a mass falling away from Voldemort. They don't all have to be good, or even redeemed by it, they just have to be human enough to get carried away with one or more emotions compelling them to defy Voldemort. And lets face it LV works against the grain there, it's bound to happen at least twice, it's already happened in Spinners end. As for Peter as a redemption candidate, who are we kidding here? I'm sorry? what? Peter is the only candidate guaranteed to *never* need redeeming motives to turncoat! Why waste that? Why waste the opportunity to punctuate evil destroying itself why not leave the perfect candidate for it, the guy who can be a right bag of dung to anyone and anything on any whim, just as he is? Draco, AFAI can see, is borderline redeemed anyway. Dumbledore got to him and Voldemort's done his dash with him, just about. It's not quite fully reasonable to say some revelation of redeemed Draco will further the plot, I mean, hasn't it already gone there now? Furthering Draco wouldn't be taking him to the brink of evil and having him back down, *again*, would it? Next time he'll go through with it or he'll suffer and die, or he'll do both before the end, but the Book seven plot won't have Draco traipsing the same worn path as HBP, surely. Snape all the way for me, I'm afraid. Sad but true.. ;D Valky Who is keen to get started on posting a /new/ piece of evidence (maybe?) of a possession link to the crack in the ring. From jenkuy at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 16 04:22:26 2005 From: jenkuy at sbcglobal.net (jenkuy24) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 04:22:26 -0000 Subject: Universal themes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141687 Hello all, I am new to the list. Have you all done any speculating about two of the larger themes in the book- 1) the idea of half-blood and 2) the idea of twins/pairings? 1) All or nearly all of the characters in the story are half of one and half of another, be it wizard, muggle, animal, creature, etc. Obviously, one of the themes revolves around prejudice and how unfair it is. But, there is something more to this idea. 2) All of the main characters seem to have a twin, Harry-Voldemort, Dumbledore-Ron, Hermione-McGonagall, perhaps Snape-Draco Malfoy. Twins is already a theme in book 1, with Fred and George and references to twins in other contexts. What does this mean and how will this play out? JKR has stated that none of the characters are time travellers, so what is the basis of these pairings? Regarding the idea of half-bloods, the best that I can do is that each of us has in us strengths and weaknesses/ good and bad, and it is our challenge to choose the good and remain hopeful that good will prevail. I think Snape epitomizes this struggle- in fact I don't think he knows which way he is going to go. However, because of this ever present theme, it is inevitable that when push comes to shove, Snape will choose to do the right thing. Regarding the concept of twins, well, maybe it is a sister concept of the other. OK, getting hokey here, but maybe it is that life is played out in the same way from one generation to the other, 1,000 years ago and 1,000 years from now, there will always be good and evil, we will always have to struggle, but the best we can do is do our best and have hope. Harry of course is a symbol of hope. So, am I on target with these overarching themes? And more importantly, how will these themes play out in book 7? Thanks! jenkuy24 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 06:26:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 06:26:27 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141688 > >>Lupinlore: > > OFH! is the only view that allows Snape to be Snape and NOT try to > twist and turn either the viewpoint or the plot to fit some kind > of interpretation of his actions. When Snape is shown being good, > he is being good. When shown being evil, he is being evil. > >>Betsy Hp: Why would an OFH!Snape make the Unbreakable Vow? After a brilliant career of playing the two most powerful wizards in a century off of one another, why would Snape make such a basic mistake? Why would an OFH!Snape work so hard to save Harry's life in PS/SS? Why would an OFH!Snape inform the Order that Harry is storming the MoM? Why would an OFH!Snape show Fudge his dark mark? How does Dumbledore serve an OFH!Snape's interests? How does Voldemort serve them? How does playing both ends against the middle serve an OFH!Snape? I'm sure answers could be dug up for all of those questions. But I don't think they'll be plain as day. Some may even require a few leaps. > >>Lupinlore: > Exactly. And that is where DDM and ESE both fall down, in that > they allow no change in Snape. He has remained essentially the > same over the last sixteen years. Betsy Hp: Why do any theories on Snape have to allow for change? After all, it's *Harry's* coming of age story. Snape is only important in reference to Harry. And Harry will either discover Snape is ESE, have his revenge or justice or what not, and run off to become an official Weasley. Or Harry will discover Snape is DDM, have a major moment of self-examination, become a man and... well, probably run off to become an official Weasley. Betsy Hp From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 16 07:46:47 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 03:46:47 EDT Subject: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141689 Nora wrote: So in this general approach, it is pretty self-evident that Snape killed Dumbledore, because it requires the construction of a considerable edifice of assumptions to argue that oh, the AK here is exceptional, and there could have been some communication, etc. This still leaves open any number of possibilities as to *why*, where the same conditions I'm objecting to don't obtain in the same way. Think of all the little details which theories of the past hinged upon, and which took us nowhere. Yes, some of the little things and some of the discrepancies are meaningful--and most of them are not. Julie now: I would differ by saying it requires the construction of a considerable edifice of assumptions no matter *which* Snape one champions, as we have to interpret each of the dozen or so inconsistencies in Snape's and Dumbledore's behavior on the Tower in some way to then string it together into a theory about Snape's underlying motives (Evil, good, or simply self-serving). There is also an important qualification that I think we should consider while judging which little things and/or discrepancies are likely to be "meaningful" as you suggest, and that is the *frequency* of occurences. Though you didn't bring them up here, Mark Evans and Alice's gum wrappers have been mentioned as examples of things fans suspected might have some deeper significance, as well as Luna's absence on the Hogwarts train you mentioned recently. The key is that these were all *one-time* occurrences. And it is true that most one-time mentions, though they can be spun into meaningful theories by our creative minds, will turn out to have no real meaning at all beyond their initial appearance. With Snape however, it isn't a matter of one or two occurences to consider. We have details heaped on discrepancies heaped on inconsistencies, over and over throughout SIX books, and each clue seems to point a different way. Snape tries to kill Harry--no, Snape is protecting Harry. Snape wants students he dislikes to fail--no, Snape wants *all* his students to achieve "O" grades in Owls, his methods notwithstanding. Snape wants to get Harry expelled--but no, Snape makes no effort to do so when that goal is actually attainable, Snape told LV the prophecy hoping to get rid of James--but no, Snape went to Dumbledore and tried to save James. And it goes on. And on. And on. There are far too many inconclusive details and discrepancies to be dismissed as meaningless, or as red herrings (unless JKR cheats, and I don't think she does). Those continual discrepancies in Snape's words and behavior ARE meaningful--we just don't yet know exactly *what* they mean. And because Snape is the embodiment of ambiguity, there is no one theory that is clearly a more "direct" or "straightforward" read of the character than any other, because very little is direct or straightforward about Snape. Until Book Seven finally reveals Snape real motives and loyalties beneath all the deliberate subterfuge, we are doomed to continue this debate, on and on. And on... Julie --who does expect revelations about Snape's true motives and loyalties, but no significant changes in his horrible personality. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Oct 16 12:55:29 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:55:29 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fleshing out the Wizarding World References: <1129347763.3110.52188.m35@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000a01c5d250$e4aeba40$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 141690 Kizor wrote: >3) How much would the wizarding outlook on human rights differ? >Muggles are largely considered an inferior race and their deaths, >should they encounter a Statute-protected species, are covered up. >House-elves are sapients kept in (admittedly willing) slavery; >Slughorn had them test for poison. I'm not sure that the WW would understand the concept of "human rights". Bear in mind that it's existed for around 3 centuries in a state of concealment with increasingly restrictive governance by the Ministry (and with an increasing Muggle population making it harder to find seclusion). >4) Might any other paramilitary organisations form in the current >conflict, aside from the Order of the Phoenix? It's certainly not contraindicated. In the WW, the political class and the bureaucracy are one and the same. If you're interested in a political career (cf Percy), you join the Ministry and work your way up the greasy pole. In turn, this would mean that participants in Wizarding Congresses (which seem to be the only overarching policy making bodies) would be largely drawn from existing members of the Ministry who have the greatest interest in preserving the status quo. If you want to change things politically, really your _only_ option is the conspiratorial route. >5) Given the wizard infiltration of Muggle governments, was there ever > a significant risk of nuclear war? I don't see any support in canon for wizard infiltration of Muggle governments, though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there was a Kingsley Shacklebolt in every country, hard working yet unobtrusive, passing on information that the WW needs to know. Maybe there never were nuclear weapons in the Potterverse, of course. But we don't really know how much interference is allowable without compromising security on the wizarding side. >7) How voluntary is the enrollment of Muggle-borns into Hogwarts? Would they be kidnapped if their parents didn't want them to go (or if they themselves didn't want to)? Or mind-altered? Interesting thought. Mind you, there's only a few per year. Most would have at least one wizarding parent so they'd know what to expect. >8) Given that magic causes interference with electricity and wizards >very seldomly are at home with machinery, yet Shacklebolt was able to >hold a position in high Muggle government, could the Internet provide >a safe way for Muggle communication about the WW? Acculturation from Muggle sources seems to be slow and piecemeal. At some point, I suspect, a Muggleborn child will pop up who is an IT wiz before they go to Hogwarts and in later life comes up with magical equivalents of some of the computer facilities that have changed our world. Can't see it working off eckeltricity, though. >X) Is it okay to steal an idea and use it as a detail? Should I >include a note saying that it came from someone whom I can best thank >by not mentioning his name? Everything posted on the Internet is in the copyright of the author. If you want to use someone's ideas, you should ask for permission hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 16 13:43:01 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:43:01 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141691 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > Why do any theories on Snape have to allow for change? After all, > it's *Harry's* coming of age story. Snape is only important in > reference to Harry. And Harry will either discover Snape is ESE, > have his revenge or justice or what not, and run off to become an > official Weasley. Or Harry will discover Snape is DDM, have a major > moment of self-examination, become a man and... well, probably run > off to become an official Weasley. > > Betsy Hp > EXACTLY! And there is where so many of the DDM!Snape theories fall down. It IS Harry's story, NOT Snape's. To postulate a Snape who is a superspy, cleverly inserted into the DEs bosom by Dumbledore's self- sacrfice and just waiting to realize the fruit of his sixteen year labors by striking from behind to insure the ungrateful and deluded brat's victory is to miss the whole point of the series. It makes Harry into nothing but a pawn, a piece on the all-clever Dumbledore's chessboard whose own decisions and actions have no real meaning except insofar as they get DDM!Snape into position to strike. The books are NOT "Severus Snape and His Final Vindication," as much as many seem to want them to be. As to why Snape's theories should allow for change ... well, that gives JKR an opportunity to show off her writing skills by showing a realistic and dynamic character. Character, after all, is the very soul of literature. Subjective, of course, as is everything about literature, but there you go. Otherwise, Snape, whatever his allegiences, remains the cardboard figure who doesn't change or evolve over sixteen years, a pathetic, pitiable, and supremely uninteresting child in the body of a middle-aged man. :-). Then again, that is a very good description of Snape after all. :-) As to Harry becoming a man, that's pretty much inevitable whether Snape is ESE!, DDM!, OFH!, or Tutti-Frutti. If Snape is culpable in the murder of DD (and I really have not seen a single shred of evidence that exonerates him from responsibility) Harry will seek justice. If he is not culpable, then he and Harry will work that out one way or another. And either way, there is justice to be taken out of Snape's hide for six years of emotional abuse, and if we don't see that(probably in the karmic fashion favored by Alla), then JKR has fallen very far indeed from the level of writing of which she is capable, just as much as if we don't see a final reckoning with Umbridge. (For Snape, I suggest a good spanking and sending him to bed without his supper. Always fit the punishment to the age of the child.) Lupinlore From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 16 14:45:57 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:45:57 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141692 Valky rubbing her hands gleefully as she dives into these excellent questions from Betsy. > > >>Betsy Hp: > Why would an OFH!Snape make the Unbreakable Vow? Valky: A fallible human Snape would take the vow regardless of his allegiance. > > >>Betsy Hp: After a brilliant career of playing the two most powerful wizards in a century off of one another, why would Snape make such a basic mistake? Valky: The appeal came from the right source, hitting him squarely on the "F-O-O-L-F-O-R-Y-O-U" nerve. > > >>Betsy Hp: Why would an OFH!Snape work so hard to save Harry's life in PS/SS? Valky: Well an OFH Snape would do it for the reasons given by Snape in Spinners End. An OFH Snape has to be somewhat of a suck up, and some characters that have known Snape a long time see him that way (Sirius and James (Lapdog/Snivellus..) though many Snapeophiles would rather that fact be swept permanently under the rug the ummm 'sucking up' doesn't work much of a charm on Dumbledore so you wouldn't see Snape trying it all that often. However, Harry's first year, special celebrity DD's favourite boy and all, I think that this could be viewed as a special case and worth a shot at least. > > >>Betsy Hp: Why would an OFH!Snape inform the Order that Harry is storming the MoM? Valky: This is where I skip to the other side of the dotted line.. DD's Man Snape *does his job*, DD after all is Great among men. Even an OFH Snape could appreciate that. The OFH Snape gets a little giddy, with the pleasure of knowing that Sirius might be suffering or dying, while he's at doing his job. > > >>Betsy Hp: Why would an OFH!Snape show Fudge his dark mark? Valky: Recognition. He's a hero you know. Fudge might darn well carry on with his huffing, but Snape is about to put his neck on the chopping board. The WW leaders oughta know this stuff when they are handing out the medals. It's a case of the simply fallible human being OFH DD's Man Snape is - he overestimates Fudge, much as he did earlier in POA. To his fortune it hasn't come back to bite him too hard. > > >>Betsy Hp: How does Dumbledore serve an OFH!Snape's interests? Valky: It serves because Dumbledore is simply a better man, and Snape has pride in his work. > > >>Betsy Hp: How does Voldemort serve them? Valky: The Dark Lord is, very very very scary. OFH Snape once saw him differently, the Road to Glory was lit by the Dark Lords fantastic mind, once long ago.. before Snape got too close and realised he was stark raving and indiscriminately evil. Now he's *just* the madman the WW can do without, but Snape'll be darned if he'll let on while Voldies wand is in his reach. > > >>Betsy Hp: How does playing both ends against the middle serve an OFH!Snape? Valky: I go DD's man way.. So I don't think he does play both sides against the middle with Voldie and DD (though I'd say he'd be inclined to stutter a bit when he is confronted with something ultra scary that he wasn't prepared for, I don't think he is as brave as he is well organised). But he will play the sides against the middle with the Ministry and DD or at least he has done occasionally, for the sake of that recognition that he *really* deserves, you know.. darn those half-baked Potter heroes, how do they get noticed! > Betsy Hp: > Why do any theories on Snape have to allow for change? Valky: I agree! No change! Some revelation is required, sure. But People are who they are. Betsy: > After all, > it's *Harry's* coming of age story. Snape is only important in > reference to Harry. Valky: Yes, and thats why a DD's man revelation makes sense, that is exactly what Harry has become, Dumbledore's man through and through. But there have to be some differences, so why not a mirror difference, Harry is very good Voldemort is very bad end quote. Harry self sacrificing as they come hence there is one left. Snape is out for himself. Oooh there's a thread on dopplegangers here somewhere... hmmm Valky From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 16 14:55:12 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:55:12 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141693 Lupinlore: > EXACTLY! And there is where so many of the DDM!Snape theories fall > down. It IS Harry's story, NOT Snape's. To postulate a Snape who is > a superspy, cleverly inserted into the DEs bosom by Dumbledore's self- > sacrfice and just waiting to realize the fruit of his sixteen year > labors by striking from behind to insure the ungrateful and deluded > brat's victory is to miss the whole point of the series. It makes > Harry into nothing but a pawn, a piece on the all-clever Dumbledore's > chessboard whose own decisions and actions have no real meaning > except insofar as they get DDM!Snape into position to strike. The > books are NOT "Severus Snape and His Final Vindication," as much as > many seem to want them to be. Pippin: Allow me to ride in on Nora's favorite steed, Excluded Middle. Some have said that if Harry does it all on his own, that will just be a tired re-iteration of the hero's journey. And above you point out that if Harry has nothing to do but what Snape and Dumbledore have planned for him, he won't be much of a hero. But surely there can be a middle path, where Snape and Harry himself go beyond whatever roles Dumbledore envisioned for them. Could it be that which unlocks the power within Harry that is now inaccessable, as symbolized by the locked room at the MoM? Dumbledore did not offer any hints as to *how* the power within Harry could defeat Voldemort. Perhaps he did not know. That will allow for some further change in Snape, while still having him reformed and redeemed from Death Eating, ie murder as a way of life. There are other characters who are candidates for redemption as you suggest, but with only one year of story time left, there isn't *time* for them to show that one can leave that path and attempt, with some success, to lead an honorable life thereafter. Ron's "poisonous toadstools don't change their spots" sounds like another form of prejudice to me, and I think we need to see it contradicted, not just for a brief shining moment, where the character gets to do something glorious and then die, but for decades, so that we can see how hard it is to live down a past, especially when people have attitudes like Ron's. Not that Snape is utterly blameless, none of the characters are. Spanking Snape sounds about right, but I would hesitate to suggest it on this list; you'll probably get a *lot* of volunteers . I've never tried to say that Snape's treatment of Harry is laudable, just that it doesn't deserve the sort of torture some people seem so anxious see visited on him. But perhaps retribution is like food or sex; people daydream of very elaborate feasts, but at the end of the day they're satisfied with a fry-up and a bit of tomato. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 16 15:40:26 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141694 > Alla: > How would it send every major character twisiting and turning, > Jen? I am very confused now. In what aspect? In a sense that they > trusted Snape? If it so, it was clear enough to me in HBP that > they really did not, they trusted Dumbledore's judgment, first and > foremost. Would it make Dumbledore more fallible? Yes, quite > tragic that, I agree, but also very sympathetic to me. > > Maybe you were talking about different twist and turns? If yes, > could you clarify? Jen: I gave Alla an unfair answer to her question last night, without using canon, so wanted to backtrack and answer her properly. First of all, that was an exaggeration. No I don't really believe ALL the characters have to twist to meet Snape being OFH. What I was saying in my original post is if we take OFH at face-value, with no added speculation (which is what I understand to the be the purpose of the straight-forward reading), then OFH has to answer the question of how he fooled both DD and LV and square it away with what we know about these two characters. That means OFH doesn't get to speculate about whether LV really believed Snape, or if it took more than a sob story for Dumbledore to welcome Snape back to the fold. It means you have to take at face-value that DD *did* welcome Snape back with few questions asked and LV *did* believe Snape to the point that Snape is now his 'most trusted' servant. Now, if you do believe those things outright, then no, OFH takes little twisting. I see both those as going against the characterization we have so far of Dumbledore and Voldemort. Dumbledore is a trusting person and believes in second-chances, yes. Requiring only a story of great remorse from a known DE to allow him back into Hogwarts and risk the students goes beyond what even Dumbledore would believe prudent. Same with Voldemort. To postulate that he not only believed Snape's story whole-heartedly but elevated him in the ranks to be his *most trusted* servant, when he trusts no one and has no allies, doesn't fit for me without extrapolation. What I believe, and have gone into detail before, is Voldemort sees Snape as useful and is using him to get Dumbledore out of the way, and perhaps test his loyalty at the same time. Since I don't claim to have a straight-forward reading, I'm allowed the luxury of speculation ;). Personally, I like this reading from houyhnhnm: > What I've been coming around to is a view of Snape in which he is > both OFH and DDM. That is to say, there is an underlying loyalty to > Dumbledore which has been in conflict with his alienation and > anti-social personality throughout the six books, but at the end of > HBP, he makes his choice. And it is for Dumbledore. Jen: I really dig this idea and it coincides with my belief Snape does have a personal motivation for joining Dumbledore's side, even if it turns out to be revenge toward Voldemort for something done to one of his loved ones. Most of the Order members have personal reasons for joining the Order from what I see: Lupin is interested in werewolf rights; the Weasleys want a safer world for their children and grandchildren and want to support Harry because they love him; Sirius joined the second time with feelings of revenge for James/Lily's death as well as presumably his hatred of the dark arts from the first go-round; McGonagall and Hagrid are completely devoted and loyal to Dumbledore and will go to the ends of the earth for him (within reason on Mcgonagall's part ); others we know little about their history such as Tonks or Shacklebolt. Snape would be the least interested in the Good of all these people, but I believe as long as he wanted to see the end of Voldemort then he is able to join Dumbledore's side 'at great risk to himself'. He may not buy Dumbledore's beliefs hook, line and sinker but he believes in the end goal enough to be DDM. Jen, apologizing to Alla for not playing fair. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 16 15:44:20 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:44:20 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? /What does Dumbledore wanted on the Tower? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > If you are right, I don't think JKR made this message clear at all. > IF Harry only needed to know that Dursleys were lesser of two Evils. > The part of " I knew you would suffer and I knew you were facing ten > dark difficult years " ( paraphrase) does not make Dursleys sound > like lesser of two Evils to me. > Am I making sense? If Dumbledore would have only said that the only > reason I left you there was because otherwise you would be dead, > then sure, lesser of two Evils it was. But he did not make that > clear to me. Pippin: What part of "You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters -- and many of them are almost as terrible as he--were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? No. I knew not whether it would be in ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you." isn't clear? In Dumbledore's eyes, the choice was between the Dursleys and a lion's den. Dumbledore did not know who else Voldemort might have told about the prophecy. In any case Harry has been attacked yearly since he returned to the WW, several times within the walls of Hogwarts itself -- he doesn't need to have Dumbledore elaborate on the dangers. Dumbledore knows that he can't be sure some of his closest and most trusted allies aren't secretly Death Eaters -- so even if he keeps Harry with him, Harry won't be safe. Nor did he even know, when he left Harry, that he himself could provide a loving home -- he says that he never expected to feel drawn to Harry and regarded it as a danger. So, from that standpoint, he would be a hypocrite if he exacted more of the Dursleys than he thought he could give himself. He asked, he hoped, that they would love Harry. But he knew that even if they did, they wouldn't be very good parents. And there was nothing, within the scope of his authority, that he could do about that. I think that Dumbledore, like Gandalf and Galadriel, believes that power without rightful authority can never be used for good. Dumbledore makes it very clear to Tom that by choosing to attend school and enter the wizarding world he has accepted Dumbledore's authority and that of the ministry. Only then does he attempt to change Tom's ways. Dumbledore has no rightful authority over the Dursleys, and going through the Muggle authorities would not have been a good idea -- the DE's would surely have liked nothing better than to see the Dursleys declared unfit parents and Harry taken away from them, and we've seen they're not above interfering in Muggle affairs. Alla: > I prefer to see Dumbledore as someone who would not take a risk of > destroying the soul of another human being, even at the time of war, > even if that human being soul was already hurt before. Pippin: But if Dumbledore believed that Snape's curse would fail, would he not want Snape to pretend to do it, so as to preserve his cover? Wouldn't that be the same situation that Harry faced in the cave, where he fed Dumbledore the potion on Dumbledore's assurance that it wouldn't kill him? Doesn't the shared look of hatred and revulsion support that interpretation of events? Of course it would create problems between Snape and Harry, to say the least. But isn't that *exactly* the situation we saw in the Shrieking Shack, where Snape had such a hard time believing that Sirius could be innocent and the testimony of so many eyewitnesses honestly mistaken? And yet most are adamant that Snape should have given Sirius the benefit of the doubt, and at least heard him out. Doesn't Snape deserve as much? Is it only Muggles whose eyes can deceive them? If we believe that, what does that say about us? Pippin From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 15:45:26 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:45:26 -0000 Subject: wishes (wasRe: Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141696 -Nora almost wishes for a website update to toss us some crumbs Valky: Oh you and me both Nora. Potioncat: Oh, be careful what you wish for.... CV: Last year, we got an update as a Halloween present. Keep your eyes open! From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 16 16:14:38 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:14:38 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: <00b901c5cab6$a760e150$080aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141697 --- "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > Obviously Snape, as the HBP, has been able to not just invent > the "silly incantations" ... with the sectumsempra and the other spells he has alledgedly invented. > > There's something here that seems out of tune to me. > > ~Trekkie > ~aussie / norbertsmummy "Alledgedly" made something click with me. There are inconsistancies in the potions book with teen Snape. - Why call himself a Half-Blood while in Slytherin? - Who could he practise the "sectumsempra" curse on while a student without getting expelled. (Remember, McGoonagall heard what Harry did to Draco, yet didn't recognise the injuries from Snape's years at school. Both she and Mdm. Pomfrey were at Hogwarts then and would have remebered Snape for inventing something that causes such wounds) - Much of the hand-written entries were faded and hard to read ... but not all. I suggest Snape had been using that Potions book at different times while teaching and that is why it was handy in the shelves. Snape would have left most of the Potions supplies for the in-coming new potions teacher, and the book was an oversight. After all, Harry took posession of the book in his first week (ok, maybe his first day, but don't make me look that up). "Sectumsempra" may have come at another time ... and like-wise, Snape refering to himself as the "Half-Blood Prince" may have been after he returned as teacher. That would also explain how Harry could surpass Snape in potions during Severus's student years according to Slughorn. Why?, because some techniques were added on after Snape finished being a student. ~aussie~ From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 16:17:23 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:17:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's pleading/What Horcruxes Dumbledore and Harry destroyed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141698 > Pippin: > > > The blood needs to be explained because it contradicts something > we've been told: AK doesn't cause any sign of damage. If the > explanation is that the AK killed him and Dumbledore bled > posthumously, that doesn't move the plot forward. It's dramatically > dead. If the explanation is that the AK didn't work for some reason, > that moves the plot away from Guilty!Snape. > > > Nora: > > I guess my reaction to the 'not moving the plot forward' based on > > that detail is: so what? There are lots of other ways to move the > > plot forward that don't rely upon that detail. Not everything is > > dramatically relevant. You've made a good case for how this detail > > could be sufficient for a result, but you can't make a case for > > necessity. > > Carol: > However, the blood is not the only incongruous detail that requires an > explanation. So do the closed eyes (not seen in any AK victim-- Cedric, > the Riddles), the peaceful expression (I know you've argued that DD > had come to terms with death, and I agree, but an AK wouldn't give him > time to compose his expression--or close his eyes), the delay in > releasing Harry from the freezing spell, the absence of a blinding > flash (not the same as a "jet"--note that the flash from Wormtail's AK > is so bright that Harry can see it through closed eyes and that a > blinding flash of green light is his own first memory). And AKs don't > send people over battlements. They fall instantly to the ground. And > nonverbal spells have been emphasized throughout HBP, as have Snape's > uncanny cleverness. Put all these together, or even examine them > separately, and there is plenty of room to doubt that Snape's spell > was an ordinary AK, or even an AK at all. And all of which moves the > plot forward in a way that Harry's face value interpretation does not. > CV: You have pointed out the exact two best reasons supporting the Dumbledore-Is-Not-Dead argument. The blood is "an incongruous detail" that "does not move the plot forward." What's another word for this type of thing? A CLUE! It's a CLUE, dammit. How do we know? Because it was used earlier in the same book for the same purpose. Slughorn used dragon's blood as the final detail for an elaborate fake death scene in Chapter 3. Dumbledore even asked about it - the blood, specifically. Furthermore, "It still might be reusable." (p. 66, UK ed.) We have been told that for those who like a dramatic deception, dragon's blood is a handy capper. Furthermore, there is a vial of dragon's blood that could be used again (for the same thing, presumably) and that it likely followed Sluggy to Hogwarts. But Dumbledore probably wouldn't have needed it, since he is the acknowledged expert at dragon's blood, he probably keeps a vial with him for just certain emergencies. The smile? There is no way that an AK victim would have the time or inclination to smile. They don't even put on a death grimace. This was Dumbledore's reaction to his own joke on everybody. Why was it necessary to have Dumbledore die out of view? As every Muggle magician (such as David Copperfield) knows, you hide things you don't what the audience to see. You let them come to their own false conclusions which you have carefully prepared. Snape and Dumbledore sent him over the parapet so that Dumbledore could prepare the fake death scene. A soft landing, a bit of bodily arranging, a dapping of Dragon's blood and a quick swig of Draft of Death and Voila! A scene convincing enough to fool everybody, including a faithful phoenix. Then, just to make certain that those who needed to know that Dumbledore is still alive, he sends up his own patronus at the funeral, which Harry just catches a glimpse of. Dry your tears, people. The Headmaster will return as Dumbledore The White late in the last book. CV, who agrees with: > > Carol, who believes that certain actions and clues cry out to be > noticed and that a straightforward reading without interpretation is > likely to be an incorrect reading > From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 16:24:03 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:24:03 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141699 > houyhnhnm: > > Ch. 8 in CoS. It is the same time that Harry discovered Filch's > Kwikspell course after being dragged into Filch's office for tracking mud. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Filch was looking triumphant. > "That vanishing cabinet was extremely valuable," he was saying > gleefully to Mrs. Norris. "We'll have Peeves out this time, my sweet--" > [...] > Nearly Headless Nick came gliding out of a classroom. Behind him, > Harry could see the wreckage of a large black and gold cabinet that > appeared to have been dropped from a great height. > "I persuaded Peeves to drop it right over Filch's office," said Nick > eagerly. "Thought it might distract him--" > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > CV, confused: If the vanishing cabinet was turned into wreckage in CoS, how could Fredngeorge have pushed Montegue into it three books later? Also, is Filch's office in the basement? Otherwise, how could a Vanishing Cabinet on the First Floor be dropped over Filch's office?:-s [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 16:40:07 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:40:07 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141700 > ~aussie~ "Alledgedly" made something click with me. There are inconsistancies > in the potions book with teen Snape. > > - Why call himself a Half-Blood while in Slytherin? > > - Who could he practise the "sectumsempra" curse on while a student > without getting expelled. (Remember, McGoonagall heard what Harry > did to Draco, yet didn't recognise the injuries from Snape's years > at school. Both she and Mdm. Pomfrey were at Hogwarts then and would > have remebered Snape for inventing something that causes such wounds) > CV: Apparently not. Teen!Snape used sectupsempra on James. Snape's Worst Memory (p 647, US ed.) "Bad luck, Prongs," said Sirius briskly, turning back to Snape. "OY!" But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of James's face, splattering his robes with blood. CV From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 16:48:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:48:18 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141701 > Jen: I gave Alla an unfair answer to her question last night, > without using canon, so wanted to backtrack and answer her properly. > > First of all, that was an exaggeration. No I don't really believe > ALL the characters have to twist to meet Snape being OFH. What I was > saying in my original post is if we take OFH at face-value, with no > added speculation (which is what I understand to the be the purpose > of the straight-forward reading), then OFH has to answer the > question of how he fooled both DD and LV and square it away with > what we know about these two characters. That means OFH doesn't get > to speculate about whether LV really believed Snape, or if it took > more than a sob story for Dumbledore to welcome Snape back to the > fold. It means you have to take at face-value that DD *did* welcome > Snape back with few questions asked and LV *did* believe Snape to > the point that Snape is now his 'most trusted' servant. > > Now, if you do believe those things outright, then no, OFH takes > little twisting. I see both those as going against the > characterization we have so far of Dumbledore and Voldemort. Since I don't claim > to have a straight-forward reading, I'm allowed the luxury of > speculation ;). Alla: LOL, thank you for backtracking, because truthfully, I was still trying to figure out what the answer was. :-) Hmmm, I also don't think that OFH!Snape excludes speculation at all, it is just requires less speculation, IMO only of course. :-)But that was aside remark. I hope you don't mind clarifying a little bit more though. OFH!Snape as I understand it requires Snape to be able succesfully play both sides for years, yes. I think I understand what are you saying about Dumbledore now ( namely why him believing Snape unconditionally would make Dumbledore "twist" for you), so even if I probably disagree with this reading, I am at least clear on this part. But I am not sure how Voldemort's beliefs about Snape contradict OFH! Snape at all. Even IF Voldemort does NOT completely believed Snape story, the fact remains that he WAS welcomed to DE circle with opened arms. Whatever Voldemort underlying speculations about Snape's loyalty are, it does not matter as long as Snape is able to be the loyal DE ( or play the part of such), so for now OFH!Snape gets what he wants, regardless of what Voldemort really thinks, now when Voldemort expresses his belief that Snape is really DD!man, then TO ME it would be different story. Am I making some kind of sense? I feel like the argument slips away from me and does not flow, but have no idea how to make it less fragmentary. Oh, and as long as I am at that subject, I may as well say that I read Dumbledore as "unconditionally trusting" man, or at least as the one who will do nothing at all to share his suspicions with anyone and therefore it does not really matter whether he trusts the person completely or trusts with reservations, because the practical result will be the same, he WILL give the person second chance in any event. I wrote on it earlier that Dumbledore attitude towards Tom Riddle shows perfectly how fallible Dumbledore is ( to me only) in that department. He KNEW that Tom was a bully at eleven and still did not tell it to anyone, even not to Tom's Head of the House. Sure, he wanted to give Tom a second chance, but who knows, maybe if warned other children were not so eager to get under Tom's charming influence. To go back to Snape and Dumbledore, ot me it reads perfectly in character that Dumbledore would trusts Snape after Snape expressed his remorse and may be even nothing else, BUT I do think that there was some kind of additional reason, we don't know yet. I just don't see how Dumbledore's nature makes it harder for OFH!Snape to come to light. > Jen: I really dig this idea and it coincides with my belief Snape > does have a personal motivation for joining Dumbledore's side, even > if it turns out to be revenge toward Voldemort for something done to > one of his loved ones. > Snape would be the least interested in the Good of all these people, > but I believe as long as he wanted to see the end of Voldemort then > he is able to join Dumbledore's side 'at great risk to himself'. He > may not buy Dumbledore's beliefs hook, line and sinker but he > believes in the end goal enough to be DDM. Alla: That is of course very possible. OFH!Snape also has variations - OFH! DDM Snape as you quoted will be one of them. I would dig that one too, but I am just not sure that at the Tower Snape was acting as DD!M Snape, or maybe he thought he was, but he is bound to realise the opposite. I am also not sure I agree that everybody has personal motivations for joining the Order, or maybe they do, but I just read it differently. Personal motivations to me mean that the benefit will be only to that person and very few other people. Lupin is interested in werewolf rights, true, but it would benefit not only him, but many other werewolfs as well, Weasleys may be interested in peaceful world for themself and their family, but I think they also interested in the peaceful world for everybody else. If Snape joined the Order, say to get revenge for the fact that Voldemort killed his family, well, that is sure much better than if he would stay DE, BUT if his way of thinking stays the same as it was when he was a DE ( you know - that mudbloods should die, or that it is very cool to cause psychological and physical pain on other human beings - I am just speculating here, of course I don't know what Snape thinks), then Snape only gets half a cookie from me. > > Jen, apologizing to Alla for not playing fair. > Alla: Thanks SO much. JMO of course, Alla, for whom one of the best ways to be satisfied with Snape's punishment will be to see him begging forgiveness at Dumbledore's grave. :-) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 16 17:02:06 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 16 Oct 2005 17:02:06 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1129482126.15.49961.m32@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141702 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 16, 2005 Time: 1:00PM CDT (GMT-05:00) 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 smilingator81 at aol.com Sun Oct 16 17:30:49 2005 From: smilingator81 at aol.com (smilingator4915) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:30:49 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141703 > CV, confused: > > If the vanishing cabinet was turned into wreckage in CoS, how could Fredngeorge have pushed Montegue into it three books later? smilingator now: "Wreckage" may not necessarily mean that it was crushed into pieces so small that Montague couldn't have been pushed in it. Like after a car accident, there is wreckage, but that could range from a car being totally destroyed to just the back bumper falling off. CV wrote: > "Also, is Filch's office in the basement? Otherwise, how could a Vanishing Cabinet on the First Floor be dropped over Filch's office?:-s smilingator now: Check out this link http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Hogwarts#Argus_Filch.27s_Office It says that Filch's office is indeeed on the "ground floor" and from the site, I suppose that this means the ground floor is right above the dungeons but right below the first floor. So, the cabinet could be dropped over Filch's office from the first floor. Glad you asked that question though because now I've found another web site that contains information about Hogwarts! From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Oct 16 17:39:39 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:39:39 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141704 CV, confused: > Also, is Filch's office in the basement? Otherwise, how could a Vanishing Cabinet on the First Floor be dropped over Filch's office?:-s houyhnhnm: I think it is only in American usage that the floor of a building on the ground level is called the first floor. In most countries, and I'm pretty sure in the UK, what Americans would call the second floor is called the first floor. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Oct 16 18:00:30 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:00:30 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141705 > Alla: > To go back to Snape and Dumbledore, ot me it reads perfectly in > character that Dumbledore would trusts Snape after Snape expressed > his remorse and may be even nothing else, BUT I do think that there > was some kind of additional reason, we don't know yet. I just don't > see how Dumbledore's nature makes it harder for OFH!Snape to come to > light. Hickengruendler: On this point we agree. I think the reason Dumbledore gave Harry was basically correct, but there's more it, which Harry might have learned if he hadn't interrupted Dumbledore. But, if Snape simply managed to fool Dumbledore, what reason would JKR have to hold the reasonable explanation back? Why not give the full explanation already in HBP, which would make DD look less foolish (and yes, I still think that's what he currently does *g*). IMO, it seems more likely to hold back some details of Snape true story, if they come with a bigger revelation, namely that Dumbledore's trust in him was actually justified. But you know I am biased in this case. From stephanie_801 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 17:10:18 2005 From: stephanie_801 at yahoo.com (Stephanie McVey) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 10:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051016171018.45116.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141706 Trekkie wrote: > Obviously Snape, as the HBP, has been able to not just invent > the "silly incantations" ... with the sectumsempra and the other spells he has alledgedly invented. > > There's something here that seems out of tune to me. ~aussie / norbertsmummy wrote: > "Alledgedly" made something click with me. There are inconsistancies > in the potions book with teen Snape. Stephanie: Somethine just occured to me, while reading this post. Could it be that although this was Snape's book, that someone else was writing in it also. Perhaps a potions study partner? Maybe HBP was someone's (Lily's??) nickname for SS and that this person wrote it in the book. If I recall, it was written in a "feminine hand". Stephanie From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 16 17:44:03 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:44:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter's Redemption (was: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) References: Message-ID: <00e601c5d279$33e727f0$6c60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141707 > Valky: > As for Peter as a redemption candidate, who are we kidding here? I'm > sorry? what? Peter is the only candidate guaranteed to *never* > need redeeming motives to turncoat! Why waste that? Why waste the > opportunity to punctuate evil destroying itself why not leave the > perfect candidate for it, the guy who can be a right bag of dung to > anyone and anything on any whim, just as he is? Magpie: Just wanted to jump in here and say I tend to feel the same way about Peter-I'm surprised when he's ever described as being the best candidate for redemption. I do think he'll have to do something to help Harry; the wizard's debt seems like it's a pretty big anvil. But redemption seems very difficult for this character. I mean, first, he's got more blood on his hands than anyone except Voldemort. He intentionally helped kill Lily and James, framed Sirius and destroyed his life by letting him rot in jail, killed 12 Muggles, killed Cedric Diggory and brought Voldemort back to life. He's the best Death Eater ever. *waves Peter flag* These are serious things with long-term effects that he hasn't taken back however many years later--his life may suck, but he's avoided major suffering. In order to change he would need to see all of these acts in a very different light. Also, he did these things knowing they were wrong in ways some of the other DE characters don't because Peter was on the other side to begin with. For instance, if Snape felt remorse after Voldemort targetted Harry it would be a case of him potentially believing that Voldemort was in the right but still realizing his own actions were wrong, or perhaps seeing that Voldemort was wrong himself. Peter, otoh, knows Voldemort is wrong but chooses to help him anyway and kill others to save himself. So we don't get the dimension of a Death Eater coming to realize that Voldemort's ideas are *wrong* and giving them up. Only Peter, of all potential ex-DEs, doesn't have to face that. IIRC, by PoA Peter's still not even really taking responsibility for this either. In PoA he was still trying to get sympathy for himself, excusing himself, claiming there was nothing else he could do, trying to make up for it by pointing out he was a good pet. When JKR had a chance to show us a different Peter, she instead to implied he wasn't ever the friend he might have been, so we've got no better version of Peter set up for Peter to return to or for us to feel sadly about. There's nothing particularly emotional about Peter doing something good except for the way it benefits the good guys. He chose Voldemort, iirc, because it looked like Voldemort was going to win. He could easily choose Harry's side for the same reason with little change of heart. JKR also saddles him with a wizard's debt which makes him owe Harry one; possibly he'll be magically forced to have to pay it back. Thus he may have even lost the important element of choice necessary to show us Peter as a better person. I still think that debt is going to come into play and Peter can still get a great story, maybe even surprise us. I just don't see that he has a lot of worth in that Prodigal role. Valky: > Draco, AFAI can see, is borderline redeemed anyway. Dumbledore got to > him and Voldemort's done his dash with him, just about. It's not quite > fully reasonable to say some revelation of redeemed Draco will further > the plot, I mean, hasn't it already gone there now? Magpie: Yes, it seems to me that the way for Draco to further the plot comes from Harry the silent witness in the Tower. He reminds us at the end that he saw Draco's wand go down, and that piece of information seems like it could definitely be important. It's the first time Harry has had this kind of personal insight into someone on the other side, and Dumbledore would, imo, make use of just this kind of advantage. (Actually, it seemed to be one of the things Dumbledore was working on throughout his last year of life.) This could also continue Draco's own development too, of course, but I feel like it's Harry's next move that we're waiting for. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 18:38:16 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:38:16 -0000 Subject: Twins and foils in the HP books (Was: Universal themes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141708 jenkuy24 wrote: Have you all done any speculating > about two of the larger themes in the book- > > 1) the idea of half-blood > and 2) the idea of twins/pairings? > > 1) All or nearly all of the characters in the story are half of one > and half of another, be it wizard, muggle, animal, creature, etc. > Obviously, one of the themes revolves around prejudice and how > unfair it is. But, there is something more to this idea. > > 2) All of the main characters seem to have a twin, Harry-Voldemort, > Dumbledore-Ron, Hermione-McGonagall, perhaps Snape-Draco Malfoy. > Twins is already a theme in book 1, with Fred and George and > references to twins in other contexts. What does this mean and how > will this play out? JKR has stated that none of the characters are > time travellers, so what is the basis of these pairings? Carol responds: Hi, and thank you for bringing a new angle to the discussion! I don't have any thoughts at the moment about your firest question, so I'll respond to the second. First, I am truly grateful to JKR for curtailing discussion of the DD/Ron time turner speculations. I've never seen any parallels between them aside from general body build and auburn (as opposed to bright red) hair. Even their noses are different, Ron's being simply long and DD's being long and crooked. Not a single reference, IIRC, to Ron as having twinkling blue eyes. Ron's sense of humor, while marked, is not nearly as eccentric as DD's (his "few words" near the beginning of SS/PS are a classic moment in children's literature). And, setting aside the handicap of having his brother's old wand in SS/PS, which is broken and malfunctioning in CoS, we never see Ron as having exceptional wizarding abilities. His gifts are the kind of strategic planning ahead required for chess, the kind of courage that requires facing your worst fears despite being terrified, friendship and loyalty, and Quidditch (it's only the ridicule of his brothers that keeps him from excelling at it). Don't get me wrong; I love Ron and thinks he gets more than his share of attacks from the fans, but he isn't Dumbledore, who "could do things with a wand that [his examiner] had never seen before when he took his OWLs some 135 years before. That pairing aside, I can see Harry/Tom Riddle (in CoS) and Harry/Voldemort to lessening degrees throughout the books, though surely the chief pairing in HBP is Harry/Snape. I do agree that the Hermione/McGonagall pairing is very marked, with its opposite being Luna/Trelawney. I expected to see something related to the Hermione/Luna contrast in HBP, with Luna noticing, for example, that Harry's scar was shaped like a rune and speculating about its significance and Hermione snorting in derision, running off to the library to prove her wrong, and coming back convinced that Luna was right and that the scar really was, say, an Eihwaz rune symbolizing protection. Or, on a simpler level, that Luna's father would come back from Norway(?) with a Crumple-horned Snorkack, proving to Hermione that not all truth was to be found in books (and not all books purporting to be factual are accurate and complete)--a victory for intuition over book-learning. Alas, I was as wrong about that speculation as I was about Agnes the dog-faced woman being Snape's mother. At any rate, I don't think the pairings you mention (and there are many others, including Harry/James and Severus Snape/Sirius Black) are twins so much as foils: characters who are in some ways similar but make different choices or seeming opposites who mirror one another: Saruman and Gandalf in LOTR, for example. Even Fred and George, "identical to the last freckle," can be viewed along these lines. It's Fred who turned Ron's teddy bear into a spider and Fred, IIRC, who used a Puffskein for bludger practice, but George who points out that blackmail is illegal (but grabs the letter from Fred's hand and mails it when Ron threatens to intervene) and who rushes to his mother to comfort her when their father is in St. Mungo's while Fred remains in his chair with his head in his hands (again, IIRC). I'm not sure whether JKR is simply trying to show that George (who is always mentioned second) is not simply Fred's follower and faithful shadow or whether there's a deeper meaning behind the differences. (Fred comes off as the showier twin, the ringleader, but George is more thoughtful and somewhat "nicer." Interestingly, when Harry gives the Twins his TWT winnings, he hands them to George, not Fred.) Similarly but not so obviously, we have Parvati and Padma Patil, also identical twins but in different houses. But Parvati hasn't shown her courage since she stood up for Neville in SS/PS, and Padma has yet to show any intellectual brilliance. They seem to be a potential but undeveloped pairing--literal, not figurative, twins who could also be used as foils just as Fred and George are. Or, just once, let me say George and Fred. There are additional tantalizing references to pairs of brothers--Albus and Aberforth Dumbledore and Sirius and Regulus Black--that I hope will be developed in Book 7 even though three out of the four characters are dead. (I could also possibly add Colin and Dennis Creevey, but I'm not sure they merit further development.) I've given up hope for any development of Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange, who look and act differently in the Pensieve scene in GoF, though it's not clear who is who. But I do think it's strange that Rabastan was brought into the book at all (he's ignored in the GoF graveyard scene but identified by name in OoP and later takes part in the DoM fiasco. And yet he would fit nicely into the contrasting brothers motif if JKR would only take time to tell us why she invented him. At any rate, you aren't the only one who's noticed "twins" or foils or pairings in the HP books. Exactly what it means, except to reveal the character of one by contrasting him/her with the other, I don't know. Carol, who managed not to make this a Snapecentric post From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Oct 16 18:40:44 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:40:44 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141709 > ~aussie > - Why call himself a Half-Blood while in Slytherin? > Christina: *claps* In all the discussions I've had with friends and family about HBP, nobody seems to be as bothered as I am about this fact. I wrote about the possible ties between the HBP's nickname and Snape/Lily (friendship, romantic love...opinion tends to differ) in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139019 If you go upthread a bit, you can hit the beginning of a great discussion on LOLLIPOPS...but I digress. > aussie: > "Sectumsempra" may have come at another time ... and like-wise, > Snape refering to himself as the "Half-Blood Prince" may have been > after he returned as teacher. Christina: That's true, but why? Who would he be using that nickname with? He is pleasant with McGonagall, I suppose, but they aren't bosom buddies. He would never use that kind of a nickname with his Death Eater friends. > aussie > That would also explain how Harry could surpass Snape in potions > during Severus's student years according to Slughorn. Why?, because > some techniques were added on after Snape finished being a student. Christina: I think that Harry could surpass Snape ("I don't think even you, Severus...") because Snape had to go through the process of research, where Harry did not. I think you're referring to the scene where Slughorn tells Snape about Harry's perfect brewing of the Draught of Living Death. Snape probably produced a very fine first try of the potion, and then went back, looked at the theory, and refined it. Harry had the results of Snape's research in his hands right from the start (bypassing any trial and error), and that's why he was able to brew the potion. A lot of characters in JKR's world showed considerable talent as children (Fred and George are little marketing geniuses, James and Sirius became Animagi as students, Dumbledore blew his OWL proctors away, etc, etc). I think Snape is probably meant to run in this same vein. >Stephanie: > >Somethine just occured to me, while reading this post. Could it be >that although this was Snape's book, that someone else was writing in >it also. Perhaps a potions study partner? Maybe HBP was someone's >(Lily's??) nickname for SS and that this person wrote it in the book. >If I recall, it was written in a "feminine hand". Christina: Harry never comments on two different styles of handwriting that I recall, so the notes must have all been written by the same person. I think that the nickname HBP *did* have something to do with Lily, and I think that the two kids were friends (why else have her good at Potions?), but whether that's true or not, I am highly confident that all of the notes in the Potions book were written by Snape. The handwriting issue has come up on this list a lot- I've addressed the issue several times. The most complete and concise post on the topic is by Carol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140373 The post is part of a HUGE thread on the subject that starts right about here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140320 Christina From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Oct 16 19:29:10 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:29:10 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141710 ~aussie / norbertsmummy: > > - Why call himself a Half-Blood while in Slytherin? Ceridwen: Suggestion: It's his own made-up nickname for himself. He only uses it for himself and in only the presence of himself. Like a kid fantasizing about being SuperTeen! or some other superhero/heroine, but unwilling to share such a childish and foolish practice with his friends or acquaintances. Didn't anybody else have such a fantasy life, like Walter Mitty's? Come on, 'fess up! ~aussie / norbertsmummy: > - Who could he practise the "sectumsempra" curse on while a student > without getting expelled. (Remember, McGoonagall heard what Harry > did to Draco, yet didn't recognise the injuries from Snape's years > at school. Both she and Mdm. Pomfrey were at Hogwarts then and would > have remebered Snape for inventing something that causes such wounds) Ceridwen: Why would he need to practice it on some person? Couldn't he have used mice, or even trash or old parchments? I don't think it says anywhere that Sectumsempra only works on people. ~aussie / norbertsmummy: > - Much of the hand-written entries were faded and hard to read ... > but not all. Ceridwen: Maybe those chapters were gone over in more detail during homework. Maybe those notes were the ones Snape worked over more than others, changing them as he tried new things, until he got the results he was looking for. Maybe a change of ink. Maybe referred to much more often later on as new potions referred back to the earlier potions in the book. Maybe he just ran his fingers over them more. *(snip as I have nothing to add)* ~aussie / norbertsmummy: > That would also explain how Harry could surpass Snape in potions > during Severus's student years according to Slughorn. Why?, because > some techniques were added on after Snape finished being a student. Ceridwen: As the originator of the revisions, Snape would have had to go through trial and error to get to the results he wanted. So his potions in class would reflect that. They wouldn't have been perfect first off. He probably did very well on his N.E.W.T.s. Harry had the full revisions from the beginning so he didn't have to make mistakes. HBP had already gone through that process for him. The potions in the book were sixth-year potions, so Snape wouldn't have had to wait to become an adult to try, then revise, them. IMO. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 16 19:33:49 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:33:49 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141711 Alla: > But I am not sure how Voldemort's beliefs about Snape contradict > OFH!Snape at all. Even IF Voldemort does NOT completely believed > Snape story, the fact remains that he WAS welcomed to DE circle > with opened arms. Whatever Voldemort underlying speculations about > Snape's loyalty are, it does not matter as long as Snape is able > to be the loyal DE ( or play the part of such), so for now OFH! > Snape gets what he wants, regardless of what Voldemort really > thinks, now when Voldemort expresses his belief that Snape is > really DD!man, then TO ME it would be different story. Jen: I think after finding out that a straight reading allows speculation, most of my differences with your take on things are probably personal opinion. Like for instance, you feel Snape is getting what he wanted whether LV fully trusts him or not. I think the seed of mistrust led Voldemort to force Snape's hand by involving him in Dumbledore's death. So in my view OFH Snape wouldn't be getting what he wanted, to indefinitely play both sides, because Voldemort forced him to take sides and declare his *public* loyalty. I personally don't believe the public persona Snape chose, loyalty to Voldemort, is actually what he privately believes. Alla: > I wrote on it earlier that Dumbledore attitude towards Tom Riddle > shows perfectly how fallible Dumbledore is ( to me only) in that > department. He KNEW that Tom was a bully at eleven and still did > not tell it to anyone, even not to Tom's Head of the House. Sure, > he wanted to give Tom a second chance, but who knows, maybe if > warned other children were not so eager to get under Tom's > charming influence. Jen: I guess I view the Tom Riddle deal in a different vein from Snape. Giving an 11 year old boy a chance and allowing him to come to Hogwarts and make a new life doesn't strike me as the same kind of thing as allowing a known DE to live at Hogwarts with few questions asked. For that reason I believe Snape's story was enough to allow him a second chance, but not enough to prove his loyalty. Alla: > I just don't see how Dumbledore's nature makes it harder for OFH! > Snape to come to light. Jen: I don't think it does until Snape had to prove his loyalty to Dumbledore. Going back to face Voldemort when Snape didn't appear at the graveyard was probably the final proof Dumbledore needed to truly believe Snape was loyal to him. My opinion is an OFH Snape would not have done that, he would have run away like Karkaroff the minute he had to face the ugly music or gone to Voldemort and stayed there. The only extenuating circumstance I see would be if Snape had some golden motivation to continue playing both sides, which we aren't privy to yet. Alla: > I am also not sure I agree that everybody has personal motivations > for joining the Order, or maybe they do, but I just read it > differently. > > Personal motivations to me mean that the benefit will be only to > that person and very few other people. Lupin is interested in > werewolf rights, true, but it would benefit not only him, but many > other werewolfs as well, Weasleys may be interested in peaceful > world for themself and their family, but I think they also > interested in the peaceful world for everybody else. Jen: That's a nice way to put it and I won't argue that. From what we've seen of the characters who have personal motivations as well as moral reasons to be part of the Order, then Snape would probably fall at the end of the line. However, I'm really hoping JKR will go with the belief Dumbledore exemplified, that allies come in all shapes and sizes and sometimes we have to accept the least of our brothers into the fold for Good to prevail. Alla: > If Snape joined the Order, say to get revenge for the fact that > Voldemort killed his family, well, that is sure much better than > if he would stay DE, BUT if his way of thinking stays the same as > it was when he was a DE ( you know - that mudbloods should die, or > that it is very cool to cause psychological and physical pain on > other human beings - I am just speculating here, of course I don't > know what Snape thinks), then Snape only gets half a cookie from > me. Jen: Hee! Well, that's something :). It's just a little harder for me to believe Snape could have lasted as long as he did on the straight and narrow if he didn't on some level believe his old ways were wrong. Not that it went so far as to change his personality, which will likely never get an upgrade. > Alla, for whom one of the best ways to be satisfied with Snape's > punishment will be to see him begging forgiveness at Dumbledore's > grave. :-) Jen, who is certain Dumbledore already forgave him but wouldn't mind Snape finally realizing that and dealing with the pain of Truth. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 20:30:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:30:08 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141712 > Jen: I think after finding out that a straight reading allows > speculation, most of my differences with your take on things are > probably personal opinion. Alla: At least my version of OFH!Snape does allow speculation, it is just less speculation, that is all. Allow me to quote Nora's 141634: "OFH is really quite direct, because it's happy to let Snape take actions for both sides--it then takes an intensely skeptical approach towards his sincerity in all cases." I really like it. Does it explain everything? NO, but it sure helps me explain a lot.Makes my life easier, so to speak ( I don't always want it to be easy, because I love speculating to my heart content, but sometimes I really do) Oh, also as we established OFH! could go two different paths or even three - OFH!Snape who feels that his interests are best served by Voldemort alive and OFH! DDM! Snape AND Snape who really really just wants to be left alone by everybody. Hmmm, have I just said something about making my life easier? :) Jen: Like for instance, you feel Snape is > getting what he wanted whether LV fully trusts him or not. I think > the seed of mistrust led Voldemort to force Snape's hand by > involving him in Dumbledore's death. So in my view OFH Snape > wouldn't be getting what he wanted, to indefinitely play both sides, > because Voldemort forced him to take sides and declare his *public* > loyalty. I personally don't believe the public persona Snape chose, > loyalty to Voldemort, is actually what he privately believes. Alla: Oh, sorry for bugging you with questions today, but do you mind explaning "Voldemort forced Snape's hand by involving him in Dumbledore's death" theory? Is that the one which argues that Snape really had no choice but to take the UV, because Voldemort somehow forced him to do it? Could you explain to me or maybe refer me to the post explaining how Voldemort forced Snape to take UV? Personally I think that Snape indeed made the ultimate choice when he took the UV. I said many times that I consider it to be the idiotic choice when I am in my most charitable mood and the treacherous choice,when I am not in the charitable mood, but I am not sure how Voldemort participated in Snape's making that choice? Some kind of mental connection, like zombie - Snape? Voldemort hypnotising him and saying "Take the Vow, Snape, take the Vow"? > Jen: > I guess I view the Tom Riddle deal in a different vein from Snape. > Giving an 11 year old boy a chance and allowing him to come to > Hogwarts and make a new life doesn't strike me as the same kind of > thing as allowing a known DE to live at Hogwarts with few questions > asked. For that reason I believe Snape's story was enough to allow > him a second chance, but not enough to prove his loyalty. Alla: Those two cases are not exact, of course, but I do believe that they could be analogised by showing Dumbledore "modus operandi". He is so wise, that he does not share his decisions with anybody, he has no confidante, so he has nobody to brainstorm his decisions with, IMO. Of course Tom Riddle had not committed that many sins at eleven as what Snape probably did when he came back, BUT what he did to those children in the cave WAS pretty bad, no? Hadn't Dumbledore owed to his other students to keep them safe from someone who showed the potential to be the psychopath already at such early age? I am sure Dumbledore thought about all of this, right? And still he CHOSE to disregard all of it in order to give Tom Riddle second chance? Don't you think that it may not be such a stretch to assume that in case of Snape, Dumbledore operated the same way? That Snape COULD be dangerous, but as long as he is remorseful, let's take him in? Had I mentioned that I LOVE ESE!Snape too? :-) > > Alla: > > I just don't see how Dumbledore's nature makes it harder for OFH! > > Snape to come to light. > > Jen: I don't think it does until Snape had to prove his loyalty to > Dumbledore. Going back to face Voldemort when Snape didn't appear at > the graveyard was probably the final proof Dumbledore needed to > truly believe Snape was loyal to him. My opinion is an OFH Snape > would not have done that, he would have run away like Karkaroff the > minute he had to face the ugly music or gone to Voldemort and stayed > there. Alla: This is another argument which I am not sure I agree with at all. Are you saying that leaving protection of Hogwarts would be more comfortable for OFH!Snape than to stay there and do whatever thing Dumbledore asked him of? Isn't it possible that the moment Snape goes to another country, the british aurors will catch him and threw him back to AzkabaN? Besides, immigrating to another country and leaving everything you love, everything you build ( both material and non-material things) behind is really, really, really hard, even if you were not treated well in that country. Trust me on that one. :-) Jen: The only extenuating circumstance I see would be if Snape had > some golden motivation to continue playing both sides, which we > aren't privy to yet. Alla: Could be that too. > Jen: However, I'm really hoping JKR will go > with the belief Dumbledore exemplified, that allies come in all > shapes and sizes and sometimes we have to accept the least of our > brothers into the fold for Good to prevail. Alla: That was beaitufully said, actually. > Jen, who is certain Dumbledore already forgave him but wouldn't mind > Snape finally realizing that and dealing with the pain of Truth. Alla: Oh, of course Dumbledore forgave him, I don't doubt that, I just don't want Snape to know that yet. :) > Hickengruendler: > > On this point we agree. I think the reason Dumbledore gave Harry was > basically correct, but there's more it, which Harry might have > learned if he hadn't interrupted Dumbledore. But, if Snape simply > managed to fool Dumbledore, what reason would JKR have to hold the > reasonable explanation back? Alla: Hee! Well, I am thinking that such reason exists, but I think it could be perfectly in character that it does not, that as I said above that Dumbledore would have trusted Snape if he just came back and said " Oh, Headmaster, I am SO sorry! Please forgive me!" So, who knows, maybe there is no explanation coming than the one which we got. JMO, Alla > From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Oct 16 21:08:21 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:08:21 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141713 > Alla: > > Hee! Well, I am thinking that such reason exists, but I think it > could be perfectly in character that it does not, that as I said > above that Dumbledore would have trusted Snape if he just came back > and said " Oh, Headmaster, I am SO sorry! Please forgive me!" > > So, who knows, maybe there is no explanation coming than the one > which we got. > > JMO, > Alla Hickengruendler: I still think it would make Dumbledore look like a fool, who deserved what he got. To bring up an example that I already mentioned at another place. It is the second World war and you are Franklin D. Roosevelt or Winston Churchill. Suddenly, Eichmann or Goebbels come into your office or met you at another place, and told you how sorry they are and that they really regretted what they did, and if they might join your side, they could be valuable spies. Would you believe him just like that, because you believe in the good in people? I don't think any of us would. Most people might consider their offers, but they wouldn't trust them just like that. And if you do, than you are simply not in the position to be a leader in a war. And that's what Dumbledore was at least two times (three if we include the Grindelwald war, but we don't know if he realy was a leader then), in spite of all the other more peaceful qualities he embodies. Therefore the idea that Dumbledore believed Snape on such a flimsy evidence, together with the possibility that the man, who said several times that death is nothing to fear, would beg for his life, would simply destroy the Dumbledore character for me. I realize that Dumbledore begging for someone else to kill him has it's problems as well, and that it very well might destroy Dumbledore's character for some other readers. *g* But *I* definitely prefer it to fool Dumbledore, but only given the right circumstances, for example that there was no chance for DD to get out of this situation alive, and the fact that Snape had to do it, because otherwise the Order would have lost two members instead of one. Hickengruendler, who starts to think, that JKR might have included Dumbledore's plea, to give the readers a hint, that this is not as it seems on first glance, because it is that OOC for Dumbledore to beg for his life From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 16 21:40:10 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:40:10 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141714 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > CV, confused: > > > Also, is Filch's office in the basement? Otherwise, how could a > Vanishing Cabinet on the First Floor be dropped over Filch's office?:-s > > houyhnhnm: > > I think it is only in American usage that the floor of a building on > the ground level is called the first floor. In most countries, and > I'm pretty sure in the UK, what Americans would call the second floor > is called the first floor. Geoff: You are quite right. The floor level with the ground outside is the ground floor so you have to go up the stairs (or lift if you're lazy) to reach the first floor. IIRC, the same type of labelling certainly applies in Germany. I never knew that a different system operated in the US. They're a funny lot across the pond. They even drive on the wrong side of the road to us.... :-)) From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 21:45:38 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:45:38 -0000 Subject: Angels on my mind Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141715 Saraquel I've been ruminating on some things that have been in my mind for a while, wondering where they fit in the scheme of things and think that it's about time to float an angel boat and start a - this is not Buffy thread. The bits of canon which I've squirreled away relate to comments made by DD mostly and things foreshadowed especially in GOF and OotP. DD talks twice about Harry parents living on in his heart, once at the end of Azkban, then again somewhere else (sorry can't pinpoint it at the moment, but I think it's the end of CoS.) Then there is the moment where the memory of Sirius saves him in the MoM battle, the fact that he produces a patronus which is the same form as his father's animagus form, the fact that he has his mother's eyes, and the appearance of shadow forms emerging from Voldemort's wand. I've been wondering if, in the final duel with Voldemort, Harry is not going to be helped by the living, but the dead. One by one, everyone that Harry loves has died, except his peers. Beyond the veil lie four incredibly powerful souls ? DD, Sirius, Lily and James. What's interesting about the GoF battle is that when the wand regurgitates its spells, it is not the avada kedavras which emerge, but the shadows of the people that they killed. As though the wand somehow stores/reproduces the connection between the killer and the killed, rather than the act of killing. I'm wondering if this scene is a foreshadowing of something to come. I haven't exactly worked out what that might be yet, but there is the notion of feelings involved in casting a spell to bring into the mix. We know that in order to cast some spells - patronus,avada kedavra - you really have to mean it. In other words, you have to involve your whole being ? head, heart and wand. We know that powerful emotions can produce magical outcomes without the use of a wand or spell (discussed recently on the list), and that Harry seems to do this not infrequently. In other words he manifests his feeling directly into magic. We have DDs speech about his parents living on in Harry. Put all that together and might we have the spirits of the angelic four emerging from Harry's wand because they somehow `live' in his heart, and through his intense loving invocation, emerge from his wand to help him at the end? Saraquel Knowing this boat will not be to everyone's taste, but feeling that there is enough foreshadowing to give it a ghostly form. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 22:36:23 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:36:23 -0000 Subject: NOT AGAIN! - WW Population Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141716 Actually, I made this calculation for a dicussion in another group, and now that I think about it, I may have done the same thing in this group in the very distant past. First let me say this is just some information, I AM NOT trying to start the whole 'how big is the Wizard World' debate all over again. Beside, JKR has as good as said that it will never add up. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CIA World Book of Facts. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html United Kingdom Total Population: 60,441,457 (July 2005 est.) Population by Age structure: 0-14 years: 17.7% (male 5,490,592/female 5,229,691) 15-64 years: 66.5% (male 20,329,272/female 19,855,862) 65 years and over: 15.8% (male 4,063,357/female 5,472,683) (2005 est.) Sadly, it's difficult to break the population downs into smaller division, so we will have to work with averages. Population per Year of Each Age Group: 17.7% of 60,441,457 = 10,698,138 / 14 years = 764,153 per year 66.5% of 60,441,457 = 40,193,566 / 50 years = 803,871 per year Population per year for Secondary Education Age: Years 11 through 14 = 764,153 per year * 4 years = 3,056,612 Years 15 through 17 = 803,871 per year * 3 years = 2,411,613 Total population in the age range of Hogwarts students = 3,056,612 + 2,411,613 = 5,468,225 Ratio of the Total Population of the UK to Students of Secondary School Age= 60,441,457 / 5,468,225 = 11.05:1 So roughly one student for every 11 citizens. If Hogwarts is 280 student then by extrapolation the wizarding world is 280 * 11.05 = 3,094 400 = 4,420 600 = 6,630 800 = 8,840 1000= 11,050 Seems rather small, but I guess if you look at various towns with that approximate population, they are significant and diverse communtities. One additional comment, Wizard appear to live close to or slightly over 200 years of age. That throws things off significantly. Only 15.8% of the muggle population is over 65. The wizard world could easily be 2 to 3 times that much. That would noticably but not substantially increase the numbers shown above. If there are any math wiz's out there who would like to correct my number for the increased number of older people, feel free to do so and enlighten us all. Of course, this doesn't prove anything. The wizard world is as a large as JKR and/or you imagine it to be. JKR said herself, that the numbers would never add up. Just killing some time. Steve/bboyminn From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 23:02:20 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:02:20 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141717 > > Carol: > > However, the blood is not the only incongruous detail that > requires an > > explanation. So do the closed eyes (not seen in any AK victim-- > Cedric, > > the Riddles), the peaceful expression (I know you've argued that DD > > had come to terms with death, and I agree, but an AK wouldn't give > him > > time to compose his expression--or close his eyes), > CV: > > The smile? There is no way that an AK victim would have the time or > inclination to smile. They don't even put on a death grimace. This > was Dumbledore's reaction to his own joke on everybody. > Neri: OK, I must have missed something, because I don't have the time to read all (or even most) of the posts in HPfGU these days. So can someone explain to me how everybody knows that Dumbledore had a "peaceful expression" when he died, or that he had a "smile" on his face? My book (HBP, US ed, pp. 608-609) describes the fallen Dumbledore as follows: ************************************************ Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again could he help... ************************************************ I also went over the previous and next pages, and I still can't find the words "peaceful expression" or "smile". Help, anybody? Neri From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Oct 16 23:15:42 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:15:42 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141718 > Neri: > My book (HBP, US ed, pp. 608-609) describes the fallen Dumbledore as > follows: > > ************************************************ > Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms > and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened > the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of > blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the > wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible > truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again > could he help... > ************************************************ > > I also went over the previous and next pages, and I still can't find > the words "peaceful expression" or "smile". Help, anybody? > > Neri Valky: Ooops, you know Neri, now you point it out I think the Peaceful expression must come directly from the description of the portrait. I take the lack of a described customary look of terror as in other Avada Kedavra cases, to be quite ambiguous in the case of Dumbledore, but still lending to No successful AK, and I continue to question that Dumbledore would have his eyes closed (in death or in the portrait) if Snape betrayed him or post humous bleeding if he was died of Avada Kedavra, as there is no precedent for that. Just in case there was interest in how much more canon there is other than the peaceful expression for questioning how Dumbledore died. Valky From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 00:04:45 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:04:45 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141719 > >>Lupinlore: > > EXACTLY! And there is where so many of the DDM!Snape theories > > fall down. It IS Harry's story, NOT Snape's. > > > >>Pippin: > Allow me to ride in on Nora's favorite steed, Excluded Middle. Some > have said that if Harry does it all on his own, that will just be > a tired re-iteration of the hero's journey. And above you point > out that if Harry has nothing to do but what Snape and Dumbledore > have planned for him, he won't be much of a hero. > But surely there can be a middle path, where Snape and Harry > himself go beyond whatever roles Dumbledore envisioned for them. > Betsy Hp: I'll add that, while it is Harry's story, Snape plays an important part, I think. Harry believes he has Snape all figured out. He thinks he knows all there is to know and he's reacting accordingly. But Harry has been too comfortable, I think, with his views of Snape. They keep him warm at night, but there are so many missing pieces (and frankly, mis-information) that I think it's a false comfort. I think Harry will need to let go of that false comfort, the luxury of hate, in order to defeat Voldemort (and become a man). > >>Lupinlore: > As to why Snape's theories should allow for change ... well, that > gives JKR an opportunity to show off her writing skills by showing > a realistic and dynamic character. Character, after all, is the > very soul of literature. > Betsy Hp: This, along with your comment earlier that Snape is a one-note character, boring and predictable, is interesting to me. Snape is my favorite Potterverse character, and one of JKR's more well- rounded, fully fleshed creations, I think. The sheer amount of time and effort spent in discussing the man, his motivations, etc., are indicitive of *something* I think. So is Snape a one note job and completely predictable? Not at all. On the contrary, I'd say Snape is quite dynamic. He doesn't need to change horse mid-stream to give a false sense of depth. He's deep enough already. As far as I've been reading him, anyway. He's a remarkably smart and logical man, but also deeply emotional (his potion riddle in PS/SS; the Shack in PoA). He's skilled in both dealing death and saving life (his Dark Arts skills and his healing skills in HBP). On a more symbolic level he is an expert in the feminine art of potions and the masculine art of wand play. (I think we've discussed the fairly overt symbolism of the cauldron and the wand before.) He's friends with those obsessed with magical blood, but chooses to live in a muggle neighborhood. And his house is in what sounds like a dying, dingy, industrial area but is filled to overflowing with books. And that's just dealing with what we know for a fact. If we enter the area of speculation we have a half-blood child of a pure-blooded mother who, for some reason, chose to join the Death Eaters. An ugly, strange, anti-social little boy who grew into a confident, witty man, well respected by his colleagues. And we have a man that set a world of hurt in motion against someone he hated and was filled with such remorse he left his friends to join with his enemies to try and prevent that hurt from happening. A man who left the winning side to try and help the losers. A man who is at the very least a double agent, possibly working against a man (a skilled mind-reader, no less) who is so terrifying people dare not say his name. I think that's enough depth for anyone. As to predictability, Snape has been mis-read from the very first book. He wasn't the villain, he was the hero, in PS/SS. He didn't chortle with glee when Ginny was taken in CoS, on the contrary he seemed rather upset. He was scarily close to being right about Lupin in PoA. In GoF, he again failed to fulfill the role of villain and insisted on behaving heroically. In OotP, he was right and again helped save the day. And then in HBP, to shake it all up, just when the reader started to get comfortable with Snape being a hero, he turned around and played the villain. There's a reason Snape is placed on a pedestal and burned in effigy by so many fans. Snape is many things and can be described in many ways. Bland cardboard is not one of them. Or at least, not in my opinion. Betsy Hp, who's suddenly really hungery for a fry-up with a bit of tomato - thank you Pippin From catlady at wicca.net Mon Oct 17 00:10:46 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:10:46 -0000 Subject: deadDD/SlugSibyl/cryptography/Bagman/AgileTonks/SociEthic/MuggleChildWerewolf Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141720 Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141369 : << There is also the question of the innate magic that kicks in when a wizard falls from a height (as per Neville being dropped out the window) >> Maybe that works only for wizarding children, as part of the spontaneous, unintended, unconscious, uncontrolled magic they do when angry or frightened, and learning to control their magic to use it at will has the side effect of preventing uncontrolled use. Dumbledore in particular wouldn't have any magic left uncontrolled! Potioncat wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141449 : << Interesting isn't it, Slughorn slipped information to Tom about horcruxes; Trelawney has made a couple of predictions about LV; Snape is the one who took the prophesy clip to LV...and all of them are at the Slug Club Christmas Party. I'd really like to get a list of all the Slug Club members from JKR. >> I think of Trelawney as a rather elderly lady, and wonder whether she would really be young enough to have been one of Slughorn's students. If she were, and he tapped her for the Slug Club then, she seems to have been a bet that didn't win -- it seems neither her family connections nor her magical abilities nor her personal charm have made her a powerful or famous or rich person outside Hogwarts. Eric wonders in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141475 : << whether wizards know about Muggle cryptography. >> Surely that 'Revelio specialis' spell that Hermione did on Harry's used textbook would reveal the clear text faster than even computerized decryption? Carol wondered in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141521 : << what happened to Bagman and suspects that the goblins are holding him hostage >> I think it's in OoP that Bill says the goblins are reluctant to ally with wizards against LV because they're angry at the Ministry for not paying off Bagman's gambling debt to them. If they're holding Bagman hostage in hope that the Ministry will pay the debt in order to ransom him, I suspect that is a poor tactic -- folks at the Ministry probably are just happy that Bagman isn't there screwing things up and making other people's jobs harder. truthbeauty1 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141574 : << Some have pointed out that we do not see Tonks being clumsy in this book. Well,we don't see her being very busy either. In O.O.P, she is a state of motion. She is "helping" Mrs. Weasley cook, helping Harry pack. She is constanly being active, so her clumsiness is bound to show up more. In H.B.P., she is sitting at the Weasleys' table, she is moping around the castle. She is much more passive, and also normally in large open spaces where it would be hard to be clumsy, I.M.O. >> At the beginning of Chapter 8, Snape Victorious, Tonks finds Harry paralyzed, invisible (under his cloak), and injured under the seats of what had been Malfoy's clique's compartment. She de-paralyzes him and: << "We'd better get out of here, quickly,' she said, as the train windows became obscured with steam and the train began to move out of the station. "Come on, we'll jump." Harry hurried after her into the corridor. Tonks pulled open the train door and leapt onto the platform, which seemed to be sliding underneath them as the train gained momentum. Harry followed her, staggered a little on landing, then straightened up in tme to see the gleaming scarlet steam engine pick up speed, round the corner and disappear from view. >> Tonks in OoP can't walk down the hall without tripping over the troll's-leg umbrella stand, but in HBP she can jump off a moving train and land standing up on her feet. Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141634 : << The morality of the Potterverse does seem very social to me, rewarding sincerity over authenticity. >> I gather that 'sincerity' and 'authenticity' are terms of art that I don't know. Explain? Kizor wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141621 : << 2) If a Muggle child gets bitten by a werewolf during the second wizarding war, is there any feasible course of action that doesn't involve skilled Obliviators and a silver dagger? >> The FANTASTIC BEASTS ABD WHERE TO FIND THEM entry on Werewolves (p.41), while not telling even one of the signs by which to recognize the werewolf from the true wolf, states 'Once a month, at Full Moon, the otherwise sane and normal wizard or Muggle afflicted transforms into a murderous beast." Newt Scamander's introduction says "at the time of writing, there is an office for Werewolf Support Services in the Being Division whereas the Werewolf Registry and Werewolf Capture Unit fall under the Beast Division." >From that limited scrap of canon, I think the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures tries to handle Muggle werewolves much the same as wizard werewolves. They would send some bureaucrat out to the afflicted person and family to explain the the problem and what the Ministry will do about it (possibly backed up by 'Believe me' charms)(what would that be in Latin?). I suppose that 'Werewolf Support Services' tell families where they can buy Wolfsbane Potion if they have the money, rents out chained steel cages to confine the afflicted family member during the Full Moon, or for free locks them up in chained steel cages at some Ministry facility if they bring themselves there at the appointed time. (I wonder if werewolves kill each other when caged up together?) The Muggle family would be provided with some cover story about the afflicted having a rare blood disease requiring a monthly hospital procedure to drain all the blood, scrub it, and return it to his/her body. Wizarding families would have to make up their own cover story. Unless your question was whether the war destroyed this system, with the bureaucrats assigned to seek out victims having all been killed off by Death Eaters, and so on? From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Oct 17 00:19:38 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:19:38 -0000 Subject: Translation/Location Problems( was Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141721 Geoff: > You are quite right. The floor level with the ground outside is the > ground floor so you have to go up the stairs (or lift if you're lazy) > to reach the first floor. IIRC, the same type of labelling certainly > applies in Germany. > > I never knew that a different system operated in the US. They're a > funny lot across the pond. They even drive on the wrong side of the > road to us.... > :-)) houyhnhnm: The translation from British to American in the American editions of the Harry Potter books is very inconsistant. Sometimes the sweet at the end of a meal is called a dessert, other times it's a pudding. Sometimes the kids put on their jumpers and lace up their trainers, at other times they wear sweaters and put on their sneakers. It just occurred to me that maybe this is the explanation for the mystery of where Myrtle's bathroom is located. At the deathday party, when Harry is first introduced to Myrtle, she is referred to as haunting "one of the toilets in the girls' bathroom on the first floor". Thereafter, though, whenever the trio visits Myrtle's bathroom it is described as being on the second floor. At first I was confused and thought I had just read carelessly. Then I went back and checked and discovered there were two different locations. Still, I don't know what to make of this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This way," he shouted, and he began to run, up the stairs, into the entrance hall. It was no good trying to hear anything here, the babble of talk from the Halloween feast was echoing out of the Great Hall. Harry sprinted up the marble staircase to the first floor, Ron and Hermione clattering behind him. [...] "It's going to kill someone!" he shouted, and ignoring Ron's and Hermione's bewildered faces, he ran up the next flight of steps three at a time, trying to listen over his own pounding footsteps-- Harry hurtled around the whole of the second floor.... (CoS, p. 138, Am. pbk. ed.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So: translation problem or particularly egregious FLINT? Maybe Hermione's statement at the deathday party was translated into American English and the passage above was not. BTW, when I was in the UK, it wasn't driving on the left side of the road that blew my mind, it was shifting gears with my left hand--kind of like writing or performing some other complex manual task while watching your hands in a mirror. I can't remember if the clutch and accelerator were reversed or not. :-) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 17 00:20:02 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 20:20:02 EDT Subject: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) Message-ID: <1a1.3e9b1832.30844832@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141722 Jen wrote: Personally, I like this reading from houyhnhnm: > What I've been coming around to is a view of Snape in which he is > both OFH and DDM. That is to say, there is an underlying loyalty to > Dumbledore which has been in conflict with his alienation and > anti-social personality throughout the six books, but at the end of > HBP, he makes his choice. And it is for Dumbledore. Julie: I like this interpretation too. We continue to debate whether Snape is ESE, OFH, or DDM, but it's not a simple choice between these very specifically defined models. There is a continuous spectrum of models that could define Snape, from DDM who faked every mean or hateful remark/action and has nothing but Harry's best interests at heart, all the way to ESE who has always been on Voldemort's side and fooled Dumbledore for 16+ years while eagerly awaiting the moment he can watch Harry Potter die horribly at Voldemort's hand (or his own)--and every combination of DDM/OFH/ESE inbetween. My definition of DDM is similar to houyhnhnm's, that Snape made a choice to remain loyal to Dumbledore, whether he stayed with that choice from the moment he came to Dumbledore about the prophecy, or he made it definitively at a later point, perhaps on the Tower as houyhnhnm suggests. DDM does *not* define how "good" Snape is as a person, only that he is loyal to Dumbledore's goals. My opinion is that Snape made some sort of promise to do whatever Dumbledore asked, whether he liked it or not (similar to Harry's promise in the cave). That didn't stop Snape from disagreeing with Dumbledore, as he has frequently throughout the books. It doesn't stop him from thinking Dumbledore's abiding trust in Harry's ability to save the WW is optimistic at best, and perhaps delusional at worst. And it doesn't stop him losing his temper, nursing his bitterness, or taking petty actions to assauge his own sense of insecurity (verbally abusing students, etc). I.e., he still indulges in his OFH side by acting on his own desires and in his own best interest when such actions don't directly conflict with Dumbledore's orders (in POA for one example). Bottom line, Snape can be loyal to Dumbledore, whether it's personal loyalty, or driven by vengeance (if Voldy did something to his family) or by principle (being unwilling to take his own prejudicial views to the level of Voldy's murderous insanity), *and* at the same time he can still indulge in all the nastiness that defines his generally unpleasant personality. The two aren't mutually exclusive at all, IMO. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 00:55:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:55:14 -0000 Subject: Snape's "idiotic" behavior (Was: Twist JKR?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141723 Alla wrote: > Oh, also as we established OFH! could go two different paths or even > three - OFH!Snape who feels that his interests are best served by > Voldemort alive and OFH! DDM! Snape AND Snape who really really just > wants to be left alone by everybody. Carol responds: I'm wondering how Snape's (or anyone's) best interests could be served by keeping Voldemort alive. (Snape wanting to be left alone makes a lot of sense post-HBP but not before--the private potions island option. ;-) ) > Alla wrote: > > Could you explain to me or maybe refer me to the post explaining how Voldemort forced Snape to take UV? > Personally I think that Snape indeed made the ultimate choice when > he took the UV. I said many times that I consider it to be the > idiotic choice when I am in my most charitable mood and the > treacherous choice,when I am not in the charitable mood, but I am > not sure how Voldemort participated in Snape's making that choice? > Some kind of mental connection, like zombie - Snape? Voldemort > hypnotising him and saying "Take the Vow, Snape, take the Vow"? Carol responds: I know you're addressing Jen, but possibly you might consider the influence of the DADA curse, which I postualted some time ago in a very long post. First, to fend off objections that Snape was not yet the DADA instructor, let me state that Snape, despite what he implies to Bellatrix, must have already known that he would be teaching DADA this year and already taken the post. There simply was no other candidate (not to mention his own very real qualifications for teaching the class in a time of danger). Moreover, I'm sure that DD would not have approached Slughorn about the Potions position unless it was actually available, i.e., unless Snape had already agreed to teach the DADA course. It would be unfair to either of them to do otherwise. That said, isn't it possible that the DADA curse, which has ruined every other DADA teacher's life or career (except Umbridge's?) was already in operation for Snape? Idiotic behavior? What about Lupin, looking at a map he should have turned in to Dumbledore, seeing Peter Pettigrew on the map, well aware by his own admission that HRH would probably be on the grounds to see Hagrid, forgetting his potion and rushing out on a full moon night? I'd call that idiotic, or at least uncharacteristically reckless and irresponsible. And it resulted, ultimately, in Lupin transforming, endangering three students, Wormtail escaping, and Lupin losing his position (quite understandably, under the circumstances). Voldemort's advantage; Lupin's disadvantage. Similarly, the Snape we know, whether he's OFH! or DDM!, is generally a very cautious man. Take, for example, his very careful wording to Harry when he's explaining Occlumency to Harry (page number available on request). Or his dealings with Bellatrix (not Narcissa!) in "Spinner's End"--for the most part, apparently, the same version of events that he has successfully presented to Voldemort, with a few new twists, added after he has carefully established that Bella is not currently on speaking terms with LV--or rather, that he's not on speaking terms with her. I don't want to press this point, as I'm pretty sure you agree that Snape would not be alive had he not been very careful in his words and actions in dealing with Voldemort and the Death Eaters, and perhaps with Dumbledore also. Other actions, even sowing his Dark Mark to Fudge (which I regard as an acto of courage and loyalty to DD) were surely not done without consideration for the outcome. How, then, or why, then, does Snape suddenly and uncharacteristically place himself in a predicament that could lead to his death? I don't think that he and DD could have anticipated such and event, though I could be wrong. I don't see any evidence of pre-planning by Narcissa, who needed Bellatrix to serve as bonder yet didn't want her along. And I don't see how LV could have arranged it, either. Yet without question, the UV operates to Voldemort's advantage and without question Snape's choices on the tower, forced by the UV, result in his immense disadvantage--the loss of job, prestige, mentor, trust, freedom, maybe even self-love. Two DADA instructors, both trapped by their own uncharacteristic "idiocy" into harming themselves and helping Voldemort. Both cases defy explanation--unless we consider the operation of a curse placed on their position by Voldemort himself. Coincidence? I don't think so. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 01:31:29 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:31:29 -0000 Subject: Wand shadows (Was: Angels on my mind) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141724 Saraquel wrote: > What's interesting about the GoF battle is that when the wand regurgitates its spells, it is not the avada kedavras which emerge, but the shadows of the people that they killed. As though the wand somehow stores/reproduces the connection between the killer and the killed, rather than the act of killing. I'm wondering if this scene is a foreshadowing of something to come. I haven't exactly worked out what that might be yet, but there is the notion of feelings involved in casting a spell to bring into the mix. > > We know that in order to cast some spells - patronus,avada kedavra - you really have to mean it. In other words, you have to involve your whole being ? head, heart and wand. We know that powerful emotions can produce magical outcomes without the use of a wand or spell (discussed recently on the list), and that Harry seems to do this not infrequently. In other words he manifests his feeling directly into magic. We have DDs speech about his parents living on in Harry. Put all that together and might we have the spirits of the angelic four emerging from Harry's wand because they somehow `live' in his heart, and through his intense loving invocation, emerge from his wand to help him at the end? Carol responds: Setting aside the difficulty I have in viewing Sirius Black as in any way angelic, I don't see where we could go with this idea as formulated here, but I want to offer an alternative suggested by your point that the shadows that come out of Voldemort's wand are not so much records of the AK itself as shadows of the people who were killed. Moreover, they know who killed them, and how, even if, like Frank Bryce, they don't understand the spell. ("He was a wizard, then? He killed me, that one. You fight him, boy." quoted from memory) We've already seen James's and Lily's shadows and I don't see how they could emerge again. Sirius didn't die from whatever spell Bellatrix cast. He fell through the veil. It's unlikely, though not impossible, that his shadow self could appear if a Priori Incantatem were performed on Bellatrix's wand, but even if it were, I don't think that Harry would witness it. But just suppose that Snape performed a real AK on Dumbledore, or that whatever spell Snape cast caused Dumbledore's shadow self to appear, fully aware of what had happened on the tower and fully aware of his surroundings, like the shadows that came out of the wand in the graveyard. Not DD as angel coming to aid Harry, but DD as shadow summoned to explain the events on the tower. Who better to confirm the thoughts (if any) exchanged by the two Legilimens? Who better to explain exactly when and how he died and whether he was already dying and what plans, if any, he and Snape had made in relation to the UV? I think this would be a better method than talking to a portrait that can only repeat catch phrases or witnessing the scene by entering the memory in a Pensieve (which would still show it in real time from the outside and still be subject to the same (mis)interpretation as the original event, even by witnesses less prejudiced against Snape than Harry. No one, not even Harry, would doubt the word of a shadow Dumbledore. If, indeed, the graveyard scene foreshadows something in Book 7, maybe it's Dumbledore's final appearance and the exoneration, or at least the vindication, of Snape. Carol, wondering how such a scene could come about and hoping that it will From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 17 02:18:44 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:18:44 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141725 --- "Constance Vigilance" wrote: > > > ~aussie~ > > - Who could he practise the "sectumsempra" curse on > > > > CV: Apparently not. Teen!Snape used sectupsempra on James. > > Snape's Worst Memory (p 647, US ed.) > > "Bad luck, Prongs," said Sirius briskly, turning back to Snape. "OY!" > > But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James; > there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of > James's face,splattering his robes with blood. > > CV ~aussie~ How's your Latin? or Spanish at least? "SECTUP" sounds like "to diSECT" like what macabre biology teachers get students to do with frogs .... so that part is "to CUT" "SEMPRA" sounds like "siempre" in Spanish. That means "ALWAYS". So the curse used against James may have been "SECTUP", but not "SECTUPSEMPRA" causing multiple cuts like Draco got. ~aussie~ From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 17 02:20:44 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:20:44 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141726 > CV: Apparently not. Teen!Snape used sectupsempra on James. > > Snape's Worst Memory (p 647, US ed.) > > "Bad luck, Prongs," said Sirius briskly, turning back to Snape. "OY!" > > But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was > a flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of James's face, > splattering his robes with blood. > Potioncat: I thought I was the only one who thought it was the same spell! Canon doesn't say. I assume that Harry's spell did more damage because of the emotion behind it. I know in posts downthread the question comes up: how did Snape practice these spells? Now, there's something I don't want to think about! But he also had to come up with a "cure" and he seems to have done that pretty well. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 17 02:27:37 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:27:37 -0000 Subject: Wand shadows (Was: Angels on my mind) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141727 > Saraquel wrote: > > > What's interesting about the GoF battle is that when the wand > regurgitates its spells, it is not the avada kedavras which emerge, > but the shadows of the people that they killed. As though the wand > somehow stores/reproduces the connection between the killer and the > killed, rather than the act of killing. I'm wondering if this scene > is a foreshadowing of something to come. I haven't exactly worked out > what that might be yet, but there is the notion of feelings involved > in casting a spell to bring into the mix. > > > > We know that in order to cast some spells - patronus,avada kedavra - > you really have to mean it. In other words, you have to involve your > whole being ? head, heart and wand. We know that powerful emotions > can produce magical outcomes without the use of a wand or spell > (discussed recently on the list), and that Harry seems to do this not > infrequently. In other words he manifests his feeling directly into > magic. We have DDs speech about his parents living on in Harry. Put > all that together and might we have the spirits of the angelic four > emerging from Harry's wand because they somehow `live' in his heart, > and through his intense loving invocation, emerge from his wand to > help him at the end? > > Carol responds: *(snip)* > But just suppose that Snape performed a real AK on Dumbledore, or that > whatever spell Snape cast caused Dumbledore's shadow self to appear, > fully aware of what had happened on the tower and fully aware of his > surroundings, like the shadows that came out of the wand in the > graveyard. Not DD as angel coming to aid Harry, but DD as shadow > summoned to explain the events on the tower. Who better to confirm the > thoughts (if any) exchanged by the two Legilimens? Who better to > explain exactly when and how he died and whether he was already dying > and what plans, if any, he and Snape had made in relation to the UV? > > I think this would be a better method than talking to a portrait that > can only repeat catch phrases or witnessing the scene by entering the > memory in a Pensieve (which would still show it in real time from the > outside and still be subject to the same (mis)interpretation as the > original event, even by witnesses less prejudiced against Snape than > Harry. No one, not even Harry, would doubt the word of a shadow > Dumbledore. > > If, indeed, the graveyard scene foreshadows something in Book 7, maybe > it's Dumbledore's final appearance and the exoneration, or at least > the vindication, of Snape. Ceridwen: I'd been thinking that the spirits in LV's wand might have some role to play in the final battle. This was before HBP, and I thought the spirits would be the only possible way to defeat a VoldySoul released from his body as it was at GH. Also, it would have been a satisfying revenge for their deaths, IMO. Harry having the brother to LV's wand just seemed too coincidental otherwise. I still think there's something they'll be able to do. LV is afraid of death, and these shades are the result of his own murdering ways. They also represent the lives on the Other Side, a place LV is afraid to go, and now that he's split his soul into so many pieces, he may not even be able to go. I hadn't gone past the PI on LV's wand, though. I like the idea of Snape's wand providing the answers to all our questions. And, from what I gather, the MoM can milk a wand for the spells it has performed, so even if we get a Dead!Snape, it can still be done. On Harry's wand disgorging the four 'angels', I don't think that would be done. The shades issue from the wand that killed them. That would imply to someone watching, that Harry killed all four. Naturally, he couldn't have killed his parents, and certainly not with that wand. But the rule seems to have been set that the wand which does the killing releases the spirits, and indicates its owner's guilt. Ceridwen. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Oct 16 22:56:43 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:56:43 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? /What does Dumbledore wanted on the Tower? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Nor did > he even know, when he left Harry, that he himself could provide a loving home -- he says > that he never expected to feel drawn to Harry and regarded it as a danger. So, from that > standpoint, he would be a hypocrite if he exacted more of the Dursleys than he thought > he could give himself. Are you saying DD would have made Harry sleep in a closet? Somehow I doubt it. Nor, once again, does this make DD look very good at all. Nope, not much of an "epitome of goodness" there, just a meddling old manipulator. And this, I think, and I believe Alla does as well, is precisely the type of hot water JKR is trying to get DD out of with her subtle rewriting of canon. > > Dumbledore has no rightful authority over the Dursleys, and going through the Muggle > authorities would not have been a good idea -- the DE's would surely have liked nothing > better than to see the Dursleys declared unfit parents and Harry taken away from them, > and we've seen they're not above interfering in Muggle affairs. DD has no rightful authority over Harry, either, and that doesn't stop him. Having made the decision, he had a responsibility, if he did indeed understand what was happening at the Dursleys, to intervene -- very forcefully if necessary. For him to hide behind the "I had no authority" excuse would truly be mealy-mouthed and rank hypocrisy. Once again, exactly the type of thing that JKR is trying to rescue DD from, I (and I think Alla) believe. Lupinlore From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 17 01:53:53 2005 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:53:53 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141729 > Alla: > > Oh, sorry for bugging you with questions today, but do you mind > explaning "Voldemort forced Snape's hand by involving him in > Dumbledore's death" theory? Is that the one which argues that Snape > really had no choice but to take the UV, because Voldemort somehow > forced him to do it? Could you explain to me or maybe refer me to > the post explaining how Voldemort forced Snape to take UV? > Personally I think that Snape indeed made the ultimate choice when > he took the UV. I said many times that I consider it to be the > idiotic choice when I am in my most charitable mood and the > treacherous choice,when I am not in the charitable mood, but I am > not sure how Voldemort participated in Snape's making that choice? > Some kind of mental connection, like zombie - Snape? Voldemort > hypnotising him and saying "Take the Vow, Snape, take the Vow"? Quick_silver: I know that this question wasn't addressed to me but I like to say my bit about it. The whole set up of Spinners End comes across as suspicious in my opinion. I mean Draco being selected to either aid a DE invasion of Hogwarts or kill Dumbledore seems like an impossible, hopeless task and, most conveniently, Narcissa agrees. Narcissa, predictably, does to the one person who is a position to help Draco...Snape. Then Bellatrix and Peter are there seeming to add more confusion and suspicion to the mix that surrounds Snape. I mean compared to Voldemort's plans in GoF and OotP this plan seems to be relatively straight forward and he risks almost nothing...unlike in GoF or OotP he doesn't lose a major advantage/goal if the plan failed. People constantly say that if Voldemort found out that Snape had "repented" then Snape would be dead. Why? Unless I'm mistaken Ginny began to suspect to Dairy and tried to get rid of it yet Voldemort continued use her. Voldemort himself said in GoF that he killed Bertha because she was of no further use to him. Snape, even a DDM!Snape, could have been of immense use to Voldemort...indeed it appears that Snape has been...he removed Dumbledore from the picture. Quick_silver From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 20:55:05 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051016205505.95381.qmail@web34911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141730 Hagrid wrote: "-Who could he practise the "sectumsempra" curse on while a student without getting expelled. (Remember, McGoonagall heard what Harry did to Draco, yet didn't recognise the injuries from Snape's years at school. Both she and Mdm. Pomfrey were at Hogwarts then and would have remebered Snape for inventing something that causes such wounds) - Much of the hand-written entries were faded and hard to read ... but not all." CH3ed: Well, Snape did use a hex on James that Harry saw in the pensieve that lacerated James' face. I don't think he said it out loud but it might have been septumsempra. The book originally belonged to Snape's mom, Eileen Prince and is nearly 50 yrs old (CH.16: A Very Frosty Christmas). She might have wrote something in the book (the faded portions?)Snape went to Hogwarts the same time James and Sirius went and that wasn't 50 yrs ago, but curiously, LV and Hagrid did go to Hogwart around that time frame... that makes it interesting. I wonder if Hagrid has any useful memories of LV and Eileen? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 04:03:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:03:30 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR?/ Dumbledore's peaceful expression In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141731 > Hickengruendler: > > I still think it would make Dumbledore look like a fool, who deserved > what he got. Alla: Oh, well. We definitely disagree on that one then as I said. I discovered that on post HBP Snape I disagree with many people whom I used to agree on prior HBP Snape :-) Hickengruendler: > To bring up an example that I already mentioned at another place. It > is the second World war and you are Franklin D. Roosevelt or Winston > Churchill. Suddenly, Eichmann or Goebbels come into your office or > met you at another place, and told you how sorry they are and that > they really regretted what they did, and if they might join your > side, they could be valuable spies. Would you believe him just like > that, because you believe in the good in people? I don't think any of > us would. Most people might consider their offers, but they wouldn't > trust them just like that. And if you do, than you are simply not in > the position to be a leader in a war. And that's what Dumbledore was > at least two times (three if we include the Grindelwald war, but we > don't know if he realy was a leader then), in spite of all the other > more peaceful qualities he embodies. Therefore the idea that > Dumbledore believed Snape on such a flimsy evidence, together with > the possibility that the man, who said several times that death is > nothing to fear, would beg for his life, would simply destroy the > Dumbledore character for me. Alla: LOL! Well, I would absolutely NOT believe them and I am not sure whether I would even considered their offers in the first place, so fishy it would have been to me, but you know what? I would not have done MANY things that Dumbledore did. :-) I would not have brought eleven year old psychopath to the school I am in charge with, because I would be afraid that other people may be hurt by my decision. I would NOT have left a baby with muggles whose my Deputy Headmaster was able to determine are " the worst kind " after wathching them for a day only. I would NOT let the former member of terrorist organization anywhere NEAR my students, because I don't know , I would be worried that this man may had many dangerous psychological issues left over his glory days and he may have take it out on my students. I would NOT be so naive as to underestimate how much one teacher hated the father of my student, that he would be able to suddenly overcome all those feelings by seeing a glimpse of that student mind. I would be , I don't know suspicious that one of my teachers came from his vocation with completely changed personality. So, to make the long story short, I am not Dumbledore :-) and I believe that trust IS an essential feature of his character. Oh, and another reason why I think your analogy is distinguishable - I don't think that Roosvelt or Churchil taught Eichman in school ( unless I don't know that fact), and old teachers tend to have all kind of sentimental feelings towards their students. At least in my home country they sure did, when they taught same class of people for seven years. I stayed in touch with some of my teachers for years after I left school. Now, even though my former teachers had no reason to NOT treat me well, I also think that if I did something questionable, they would have still trusted me simply because of me being their former student. Hickengruendler: > I realize that Dumbledore begging for someone else to kill him has > it's problems as well, and that it very well might destroy > Dumbledore's character for some other readers. *g* Alla: Not completely destroy, but it will definitely require to do some major twisting in my head. :-) I see him as first of all spiritual leader and then war leader, but of course it is a possibility that JKR does not see him that way and her view is what matters the most. :-) > > Hickengruendler, who starts to think, that JKR might have included > Dumbledore's plea, to give the readers a hint, that this is not as it > seems on first glance, because it is that OOC for Dumbledore to beg > for his life > Alla: I thought you believed it all along :-) and as I said I believe that in order to complete Horcrux quest and to protect his students , Dumbledore would beg, because in essence he would not be begging for his life , but for the lifes of others. > Neri: > My book (HBP, US ed, pp. 608-609) describes the fallen Dumbledore as > follows: > > ************************************************ > Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms > and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened > the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of > blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the > wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible > truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again > could he help... > ************************************************ > > I also went over the previous and next pages, and I still can't find > the words "peaceful expression" or "smile". Help, anybody? Alla: Oh, BRAVO, Neri. Do you know even though I was surprised by mention of the "smile" upthread , I also fell for peaceful expression ( I simply had not reread that chapter since my second reread in August, but I read about "peaceful expression" many times on the list). In any event, even if Dumbledore had peaceful expression on his face, which as you so nicely showed that he had not, or at least we don't see it, I would be quite convinced that the ONLY expression character like Dumbledore can have when he is dead is peace, since he is indeed not afraid of death and I also don't think that by few Avadas we have seen we can judge that Avada can produce no different effects at all. As to blood, someone pointed out ( Amiable Dorsai?) that bodies could blead after the fall. Now, Valky mentions that peaceful expression comes from the portrait, but I think it is even more remote piece of evidence that Dumbledore died peacefully than if we saw peaceful expression on his dead face. Portraits are just the imprint of personality, right? There is no way that portrait would have know how Dumbledore died, IMO. Therefore it makes total sense to me that portrait would have the imprint of one of the basic qualities of Dumbledore's character - peacefullness, even if prior to his death he learned that he trusted someone he should not have. Of course, JMO. Alla. From djklaugh at comcast.net Mon Oct 17 04:16:32 2005 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:16:32 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141732 > CV: Apparently not. Teen!Snape used sectupsempra on James. > > Snape's Worst Memory (p 647, US ed.) > > "Bad luck, Prongs," said Sirius briskly, turning back to > Snape. "OY!" > > But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there > was > a flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of James's face, > splattering his robes with blood. > Potioncat: > I thought I was the only one who thought it was the same spell! Canon > doesn't say. I assume that Harry's spell did more damage because of > the emotion behind it. > > I know in posts downthread the question comes up: how did Snape > practice these spells? Now, there's something I don't want to think > about! But he also had to come up with a "cure" and he seems to have > done that pretty well. Deb here: Harry's spell did more damage not just because of the intensity of emotion but also because: "SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly". IMO it was the wildly waving wand that caused the extent of the damage - he appears to be slashing wildly and wounds appeared all over Draco not just in one or two places. When Snape did this in the Pensieve memory his wand action appeared to be controlled - "... directed his wand straight at James..." . As to where he was practicing ... well we also saw a memory of younger Snape zapping flies... maybe he practiced his created curses on flies or other insects in the privacy of his bedroom. Deb (djklaugh) From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Oct 17 00:43:34 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:43:34 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > There's a reason Snape is placed on a pedestal and burned in effigy > by so many fans. Snape is many things and can be described in many > ways. Bland cardboard is not one of them. Or at least, not in my > opinion. > Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. When I see him interact with Harry in some way not determined or deeply colored by nastiness and bitterness, I will agree he has grown complex and interesting, as opposed to boring and pathetic. Until then, he's Little Johnny One Note who badly needs to be spanked and sent to bed without his supper. Lupinlore From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 05:20:40 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 05:20:40 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141734 > Valky: > Ooops, you know Neri, now you point it out I think the Peaceful > expression must come directly from the description of the portrait. > Neri: Thanks Valky, now I see it. It's Dumbledore's new *portrait* that is described as "looking peaceful and untroubled". But I don't think this is where the words "peaceful expression" came from. In fact, it's very easy to trace exactly where they came from. Just type "peaceful expression" in the search box on the top right (if you are in the HPfGU site), and then hit "search more" many times, and you'll quickly discover how this one spread out and what was the original source. You might find this entertaining as I did . > Valky: > I take the lack of a described customary look of terror as in other > Avada Kedavra cases, to be quite ambiguous in the case of Dumbledore, > but still lending to No successful AK, and I continue to question that > Dumbledore would have his eyes closed (in death or in the portrait) if > Snape betrayed him or post humous bleeding if he was died of Avada > Kedavra, as there is no precedent for that. Just in case there was > interest in how much more canon there is other than the peaceful > expression for questioning how Dumbledore died. > Neri: Regarding the post humus bleeding, I'm not a pathologist, and neither is JKR, but it sounds logical to me that if a person had a nasty poison in his stomach for many minutes then an internal bleeding might occur. If this person is then thrown from the top of a tower and lands on his back, it seems reasonable the blow would make a bit of this blood trickle out of his mouth, even if his heart stopped three or four seconds before that. Regarding the "customary look of terror", being wary now of anything that isn't cited canon I went looking and found Cedric's expression is "slightly surprised". It's only the Riddles who have "a look of terror" on their face. Another interesting inconsistency I found is that in the Frank Brice case and in the spider case there's a "rushing sound" after the green light, which in the spider case is further described "as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air". This quite distinct sound is *not* described in Cedric's case, nor in the fox case, nor in any of the many AKs in the MoM, nor on the tower. In the Cedric case there's a "swishing noise" but it's heard *before* the green light, actually before the "Avada Kedavra!" incantation is even spoken, and so I take it to be the sound of the wand whipped out of hiding (Harry's eyes are shut in pain so he doesn't see it). So did Cedric too die from something else? And what about the fox? As a whole, if JKR meant for the AK symptoms to be a clue I'd say she did a pretty lousy job describing them consistently throughout the series. If, however, she went for the most appropriate dramatic effect in each specific context, I'd say she just about nailed it. Neri From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 17 07:06:10 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:06:10 -0000 Subject: Translation/Location Problems( was Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: houyhnhnm: > > The translation from British to American in the American editions of > the Harry Potter books is very inconsistant. Sometimes the sweet at > the end of a meal is called a dessert, other times it's a pudding. > Sometimes the kids put on their jumpers and lace up their trainers, at > other times they wear sweaters and put on their sneakers. Geoff: Of the above, the only one you would NOT hear used by folk in the UK regularly would be sneakers. "Dessert" is probably a bit "posh" for young people - I myself tend towards the use of "pudding" but I interchange sweaters/jumpers ad lib. houyhnhnm: > BTW, when I was in the UK, it wasn't driving on the left side of > the road that blew my mind, it was shifting gears with my left hand > - kind of like writing or performing some other complex manual task > while watching your hands in a mirror. I can't remember if the > clutch and accelerator were reversed or not. :-) Geoff: Nope. Standard layout. Left to right - clutch/brake/accelerator. Some Americans find it odd changing gear manually as well. That's another US/UK difference. We change gear, you shift them. From guzuguzu at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 08:30:31 2005 From: guzuguzu at yahoo.com (guzuguzu) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:30:31 -0000 Subject: AgileTonks/Tonks is Tonks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady" wrote: > Tonks in OoP can't walk down the hall without tripping over the > troll's-leg umbrella stand, but in HBP she can jump off a moving > train and land standing up on her feet. Well, yes and no. I reread the passages in OoP where Tonks appears, and actually, she is "agile" more often than she is clumsy. She does nothing clumsy as an escort to King's Cross Station, nor the entire trip to visit Mr. Weasley at the hospital, nor on the Knight Bus, nor the battle at the Ministry. She is not a walking calamity. I could even argue that while jumping off the train, she would have been extra careful and focused, so she wouldn't have injured herself or Harry. And anyway, we hear from Fleur that she has been knocking things over recently. My opinion is that it's pointless to count the instances of Tonks "not being herself" in HBP, because we have several characters *repeatedly* comment throughout the book that Tonks is not acting or looking like her normal self. That's a given fact. The clues that the readers are supposed to be searching for are for why that is, and the answer turns out to be Lupin (and there are definitely clues that point to that answer). I haven't seen any clues that point to Narcissa (or anyone else) impersonating Tonks, or having her under control. I do believe that JKR's intention was to have the short description of pink-haired Tonks holding Lupin's hand at the funeral to be the happy ending to the "Tonks mystery subplot". I can't see what her motivation would be for her to have that turn out to be a big plot twist. guz From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 09:32:25 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:32:25 -0000 Subject: What kind of morality if any does JKR write? WAS: Twist JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141737 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: But I sure remember Sirius leaving his family, > because his family was on the side of Dark and I don't remember > anything in the narrative judging such action as negative. So, I > would > probably say that while family IS important for JKR, following the > greater moral principle could be more important. Finwitch: Yes. In all cases - Harry vs. Dursleys, Dobby vs. Malfoys - It is good for a person to abandon family for his own perception of what's right. While some may argue about Percy doing practically the same - it's not that. Percy didn't have his *own* perception. He was merely oblidging Crouch/Fudge/Scrimgeour - simply work over family. Not good. As for Kreacher, he was holding Black-views despite the one survivor of that family being against them... Anyway, Albus Dumbledore is the example of a highly moral person in Potterverse. I'll be waiting to see how Aberforth turns out... hopefully he IS in the 7th book... Finwitch From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Mon Oct 17 09:46:41 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:46:41 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question about the Vanishing Cabinet Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141738 Constance Vigilance quotes puzzling bits: > houyhnhnm: > > Ch. 8 in CoS. It is the same time that Harry discovered Filch's > Kwikspell course after being dragged into Filch's office for tracking mud. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Filch was looking triumphant. > "That vanishing cabinet was extremely valuable," he was saying > gleefully to Mrs. Norris. "We'll have Peeves out this time, my sweet--" > [...] > Nearly Headless Nick came gliding out of a classroom. Behind him, > Harry could see the wreckage of a large black and gold cabinet that > appeared to have been dropped from a great height. > "I persuaded Peeves to drop it right over Filch's office," said Nick > eagerly. "Thought it might distract him--" > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >CV, confused: >If the vanishing cabinet was turned into wreckage in CoS, how could Fredngeorge have >pushed Montegue into it three books later? Deborah, now: Whatever Filch's personality may be, he is skilled at restoring slashed portraits - without magic, too, since he isn't up to it, Kwikspell courses notwithstanding. So he would have the ability to restore the valuable cabinet ... and he would have reported it broken in order to get rid of Peeves; not that he succeeded there! And I suspect that he couldn't ... all the poltergeist lore serves to indicate that the source of the bangings, throwings, breakings and destructive outbursts in general can be traced to a disturbed teenager. Think of the latent power available at Hogwarts! The place is Poltergeist Paradise ... From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 10:03:05 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:03:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's trust&Legilimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141739 > > Alla: > > So, to make the long story short, I am not Dumbledore :-) and I > believe that trust IS an essential feature of his character. Finwitch: I believe it as well. To add up, I have a theory considering Legilimency and trust. You might recall that if Dumbledore suspects Harry of some serious wrongdoing he Legilimences him. (Such as when he asked whether Harry put his name into the goblet -- any time Harry feels like being X-rayed or something). Because Albus trusts people, his Legilimency stays under control. If he so much as doubts, Legilimency would, I believe, be a more or less automatic reaction. Of course, since Snape is an Occlumens, that sort of thing doesn't exactly work... It's a matter of choice. He can't know either way. Aberforth, OTOH doesn't trust people. He must control his Legilimency by avoiding eye-contact. I think that's the reason why his customers hide their face... I think that Legilimency/Occlumency may be something one is born with or one can gain if bitten by werewolf/Vampire. It *might* be possible to learn either skill, but other than the fiasco between Harry/Snape, we may never know. Finwitch From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 17 10:19:43 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:19:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's story - Comparison to LoTR and Star Wars Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141740 Hickengruendler: Over the last weeks lupinlore and some other posters regularly pointed out, that Snape being a super-spy would take away from the fact, that the books are about Harry's journey, and would make Harry to unimportant for the eventual outcome. I first answered, that as long as Harry does the big deeds, it's very well possible (and of course highly likely, the real question here if Snape is among them) that others will help, too. Spoilers for Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are following I have to argue against my own words now giving examples from LoTR and Star Wars. In LoTR Luke Skywalker was the hero. But he was not the one, who killed Darth Vader or the Emperor in the end. Instead DV redeemed himself and sarcificed himself, while killing the Emperor. One could argue, that especially with the second series of (IMO rather horrible) films Darth Vader became the main character of the Star Wars saga, but he certainly wasn't during the original trilogy. And yet Luke's role as the hero wasn't undermined (IMO, of course), because it was him, who got through Darth Vader and basically helped redeeming him. Similarly, in LoTR it were Gollum's actions, who led to the Happy- End, while Frodo failed fighting the ring. Gollum, other than Darth Vader, didn't really redeem himself, but it was one of his actions that led to the triumph of good. And still it doesn't undermine what Frodo did (again, IMO of course), because he and Sam made it to Mount Doom, which was a heroic deed quite in it's own right, and because it ws Frodo's decision to spare Gollum, that made the victory even possible in the end. Of course most of you know this already (I assume), I just wanted to post this again, because it is not true, that an ending were the Bad Guy dies by someone else than the hero undermines the hero's journey or makes for an unsatisfactory end. Frodo failed and Luke needed to be saved, and yet LoTR and Star Wars are probably the two most known and liked hero journeys from the last fifty years (other than Harry Potter). Which brings us back to Snape, and if he might play a role similarly to Darth Vader and Gollum. If he is ESE or OFH it is of course possible, if Harry doesn't act as eggplant adviced him to do and as he plans to do, and shows mercy to Snape at some point in book 7. But a Dumbledore's Man Snape makes it rather unlikely, since both Gollum and Darth Vader got in a position to help by one of the hero's decisions (trying to get through his father, not killing Gollum), while DDM Snape would be in that position, because of Dumbledore's decision (though I have to add that destroying all the horcruxes on their own, would probably be quite a heroic quest for Harry anyway). Since I'm a believer in DDM Snape, I stand by my opinion, that he will somehow help Harry, but not be too directly involved in Voldemort's downfall (except that everyone, who helps, is somehow involved). Therefore the likeliest candidate to have the Gollum/DV role is IMO Wormtail. Harry has already shown mercy to him, which according to the epitom of goodness in the series was, despite it's direct consequences, a noble thing to do. Wormtail has still that life-debt that needed to be paid back, and JKR hinted in an interview after HBP, that it will. Personally, I think he will have the Gollum role, that his selfish motivated reasons are the clue for the victory of the good side. So far, he hasn't shown any redeeming qualities, but then, neither did Darth Vader before the climax of "Return of the Jedi", therefore I won't totally rule out a real redemption. It would also make sense, that "the Potter the Dark Lord knows not" will be his downfall, since it is Harry's empathy, therefore a sort of love, that will save him in the end. Hickengruendler, who is aware that those ideas aren't new at all, but wanted to mention them again, mostly to remind everybody that just because a hero doesn't do the killing in the end, his storyline won't necessary be undermined From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 17 10:20:52 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:20:52 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR?/ Dumbledore's peaceful expression In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141741 > Alla: > > LOL! Well, I would absolutely NOT believe them and I am not sure > whether I would even considered their offers in the first place, so > fishy it would have been to me, but you know what? I would not have > done MANY things that Dumbledore did. :-) > Elyse here: Everyone keeps talking about these mistakes that Dumbledore made, but I myself do not believe that what he did amounted to a mistake. Dumbledore was a wise man, he had imagination and vision. He was able to see so much that normal people could not because he *believed*. This is what made him the greatest wizard Harry would ever meet. And that is precisely why Dumbledore is The Only One He Ever Feared. o> Alla: > I would not have brought eleven year old psychopath to the school I > am in charge with, because I would be afraid that other people may > be hurt by my decision. > Elyse: I really dont want to sound rude saying this, but there's no other way around it, so forgive me. Who are you to decide whether an eleven year old is a psychopath? I doubt a single psychiatrist would in his or her professional opinion (ie knowing they might be sued for it) would declare Tom Riddle a dangerous,unredeemable,psychopath,who should not be allowed the privilege of education, based on that little interview. It would require a lot of therapy before he could be justifiably called a psychopath, and even then, nobody would have dared deny him an education (although since he was already in control of his magical powers, education is a moot point anyway). He may have certain qualities that point in this direction, yes, but that could be because he never received proper guidance, never got the love, the moral and ethical persuasion that others did. Is it too much to presume that he might make friends at Hogwarts where he would be among other wizards of his own kind? IMO, this what Dumbledore believed or at the least, hoped for. And based on this, Dumbledore chose to give him not his second chance, but his first one. And we have been told that Riddle was a nice, uiet studious boy, who seemed to please all the teacher, was extremely intelligent and well behaved. He could be very charming when he wanted to, and in any case had all the techers wound on his litlle finger. If Dumbledore had warned them before he reached Hogwarts, would any teacher have believed him? They would have thought that Dumbledore was simply prejudiced; how could sweet,smart Tom Riddle be a psychopath? And how could Dumbledore have stopped him coming to Hogwarts? "He seems like a psychopath" would not be sufficient to deny Tom Riddle entry into Hogwarts. That would be like sending Snape to fetch Harry in PS/SS and come back without the boy saying "I thought him too dangerously unbalanced to deserve an education". Alla: > I would NOT have left a baby with muggles whose my Deputy Headmaster > was able to determine are " the worst kind " after wathching them > for a day only. Elyse: Yep, and let the "Chosen One" have the pleasure of choosing which way he wanted to die: at the hands of Regenerated!Voldemort or under Bellatrix's motherly gaze. Come on, be fair. It was either certain death and victory for Voldemort or being abused, but staying alive. And I dont see how it was possible for Dumbledore to foresee exactly how bad their treatment of Harry was. > Alla: > I would NOT let the former member of terrorist organization anywhere > NEAR my students, because I don't know , I would be worried that > this man may had many dangerous psychological issues left over his > glory days and he may have take it out on my students. > Elyse: Well, whats the point of being redeemed if no one is willing to give you a job and ostracize you because you *may* have psychological issues left over? By your way of thinking, we should give life sentences to all convicts, shouldnt we, because they *may* have psychological issues left over from their time in jail? I read this fabulous Victor Hugo story years ago. I think it was from Les Miserables but I'm not sure. Its the story of a newly released convict who cannot get food or board despite having the money to pay for it, because,being an ex-con, nobody trusts him. The only person willing to take him in is a bishop, whose silver candlesticks the ex- con promptly steals that night, because he is sure nobody will give him a job. The ex-con is apprehended and then he is brought in front of the bishop, who tells the police they were a gift. The ex-con is released and the bishop forgives him when the ex-con is remorseful. I actually think this is what epitomises Dumbledore as the example of good. He was able to put aside doubt and believe that the man standing in front of him was really remorseful. He had faith. His believing in the best of people was what made him the most respected wizard of all time. He could look at a man, put aside whatever faults he has or had, and see the best that this man was capable of. Alla: > I would NOT be so naive as to underestimate how much one teacher > hated the father of my student, that he would be able to suddenly > overcome all those feelings by seeing a glimpse of that student mind. > Elyse: I dont think he expected Snape to overcome those feelings, just to put them aside for the sake of the greater good, which Snape definately did. IMO, it is Harry who enters into the lessons with strong feelings, and refuses to put them aside to actually learn what Snape is teaching him, even when he knows it is for a good reason. Alla: > I would be , I don't know suspicious that one of my teachers came > from his vocation with completely changed personality. > Elyse: We arent told that Quirrel cahnged personality completely. He might have been nervous before, an absent minded genius type,you know? And in any case, if I had a ghastly experience with vampires, I would certainly come way with a sightly more wary personality. Once bitten, twice shy, I think, was the case with Quirrel. Alla: > So, to make the long story short, I am not Dumbledore :-) and I > believe that trust IS an essential feature of his character. > Elyse: To make a short story slightly longer, yes trust is an essential part of his character. That is exactly why JKR should not make Snape evil. Because then she would imply that the essential feature of the epitome of good is such a tragic flaw. I think coming away from the books with a renewed faith that people can be more than just the sum of their past actions. Just because someone did something bad once does not mean they cannot make a different choice in future. Elyse, who does not think Dumbledore made any huge mistakes P.S. I know this is totally unrelated to the topic, but someone (Betsy?) asked before, how people can say Snape would not do such-and- such a thing because it would be OOC, and wondered how people could possibly *know* Snape so well. I want to know how come people keep saying Dumbledore /would/ do certain things, because it would/would not be in character. I know that we have more info on DD than Snape but we still dont know all that much abot his character From maliksthong at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 10:44:55 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:44:55 -0000 Subject: Harry and wandless magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141742 Chys: Why couldn't Harry do wandless/nonverbal magic on the train when he was trapped under the 'petrificus totalus' curse? Well, he had tried 'accio wand', and failed. I would think that would be a very emotionally charged time, so for that arguement, I don't know how it stands unless he's simply not skilled enough with it yet. Maybe it was harder because he was trying it nonverbally and his own wand is a crutch, a tool he's become dependant upon? Chys From maliksthong at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 10:48:46 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:48:46 -0000 Subject: Wands/DD's clapping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141743 > houyhnhnm quotes (from PS/SS): > > He clapped his hands. In an instant, the green hangings became > scarlet and silver became gold; the huge Slytherin serpent vanished > and a towering Gryffindor lion took its place. > Chys: Maybe that was a message to the house elves to change the decoration. I don't know how relevant that is, but it would seem they do it all without being seen. So all anyone would see is DD clapping his hands and the elves taking that as a sign to comply. Chys From maliksthong at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 11:06:21 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:06:21 -0000 Subject: Lord Voldemort's Wand/less magic? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141744 So, I know Voldemort has a wand like Harry's the brother wand, but when did he acquire the wand? Surely after he learned of the wizarding world. So what magic did he use before then? I figure from what I read in HBP he knew some basics of legillimency, his 'tell the truth!' seemed to point to that. He tortured people... Did he do this with magic? He could make people do what he wanted them to do, didn't he say that do DD? Ok, this is all sounding very bad to start with, so isn't that wandless magic (and a lot of it?) used to his own gain? People were looking for examples of wandless magic and I don't know if this counts or not. Chys From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 17 11:10:29 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:10:29 -0000 Subject: What would Dumbledore do? (Re: Twist JKR?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141745 > > Elyse: > > P.S. I know this is totally unrelated to the topic, but someone > (Betsy?) asked before, how people can say Snape would not do such-and- > such a thing because it would be OOC, and wondered how people could > possibly *know* Snape so well. > I want to know how come people keep saying Dumbledore /would/ do > certain things, because it would/would not be in character. I know > that we have more info on DD than Snape but we still dont know all > that much abot his character > Hickengruendler: I'm not 100% sure what exactly you mean. I assume you mean the opinions, that Dumbledore would never beg for his life or would never ask someone else to kill him. These are the two points I'm answering, I'm not sure if you mean some other scenes as well. First of all, many readers, including me, think Dumbledore would never beg for his life. While I can't speak for the others, I can tell you, why I think he would never do this. This is the same man, who says at the end of PS, that death is nothing but the next great adventure. In a scene, by the way, in which he told Harry, that he destroyed the Philosopher's Stone, therefore basically sacrificing his old friend Nicholas Flamel (of course with Flamel's agreement) to make sure that the stone will never get into Voldemort's hand. This does IMO seem to imply, that Dumbledore is not totally against sacrificing a human life, if it helps the greater good. Of course I am aware with the problems my interpretation has, most notably that the Flamells lived well beyond their age anyway, which can't really be said about Dumbledore, since there are still older people in the WW, like Madam Marchbanks. He consoles Harry with the fact, that Nicholas and Perenelle are simply going to their next great adventure, because it was the time for them to go. He reinforces this in OotP during the duel with Voldemort, where he called his fear of death Tom's greatest weakness. And in HBP he again tells Harry, that Voldemort secretly fears death and darkness, clearly implying that those are not things to be feared. Therefore from my knowledge of Dumbledore's opinion about death, I consider it OOC for him to beg for his life. Of course it is possible, that Dumbledore generally thinks death is nothing to be feared, but being confronted with his own possible demise, he still begs for his life, because for the first time he really has to face it. But that would IMO make him a hypocrite, who is willing to send his old friend Nicholas and his wife to their next great adventure, but secretly fears to make that step as well. Not something I would expect from the epitome of goodness. What I also said is, that I can't see Dumbledore pleading with a villain generally, even if it is for something else than his life (except maybe saving Harry. You know, this would be the part of OFH Snape I probably would accept the most. A Dumbledore who realizes that Snape will kill him because of the UV, but begs him to save Harry under the cloak). I'm basing this opinion on the way Dumbledore spoke with Voldemort in the DoM and with the other DE on the tower in HBP. Therefore from the way I have seen Dumbledore interacting with Death Eaters, I consider a DD's who is pleading as not in character. On the other hand, many who think Snape is ESE or OFH, think it would be more OOC for him to ask someone else to kill him. Considering that we learnt, that a murder splits the soul, it is understandable that some readers think Dumbledore would never ask for this, since his "next great adventure" speech implies that he believes in the afterlife, and that people with a destroyed soul might not make that step to a better place (don't forget that he considered the Dementor's Kiss, basically the destoryment of one's soul, worse than simple death). Nonetheless, I am one of those, who think that in very special circumstances, it is not OOC for DD to ask for this. I am basing this partly on the destroyment of the PS, although I already mentioned the main difference in the two situations. Hickengruendler From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 17 11:38:32 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:38:32 -0000 Subject: AgileTonks/Tonks is Tonks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141746 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "guzuguzu" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady" wrote: > > > Tonks in OoP can't walk down the hall without tripping over the > > troll's-leg umbrella stand, but in HBP she can jump off a moving > > train and land standing up on her feet. guz: > Well, yes and no. I reread the passages in OoP where Tonks appears, > and actually, she is "agile" more often than she is clumsy. She does > nothing clumsy as an escort to King's Cross Station, nor the entire > trip to visit Mr. Weasley at the hospital, nor on the Knight Bus, > nor the battle at the Ministry. She is not a walking calamity. I > could even argue that while jumping off the train, she would have > been extra careful and focused, so she wouldn't have injured herself > or Harry. And anyway, we hear from Fleur that she has been knocking > things over recently. Marianne: I just wanted to add a bit of canon regarding Tonks' lack of agility. She describes herself to Harry in "The Advance Guard" in OoP: "I got top marks in Concealment and Disguise during Auror training...Nearly failed on Stealth and Tracking. I'm dead clumsy, did you hear me break that plate when we arrived downstairs?" I agree this does not make her a walking calamity, but it establishes that she is not the most graceful of our cast of characters. However, she does seem to be able to keep it together when she is on active Auror duty. Marianne From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 17 12:18:31 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:18:31 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141747 > > Valky: > > I think the Peaceful > > expression must come directly from the description of the > > portrait. > > Neri: > Thanks Valky, now I see it. It's Dumbledore's new *portrait* that is > described as "looking peaceful and untroubled". > > But I don't think this is where the words "peaceful expression" came > from. In fact, it's very easy to trace exactly where they came from. > Just type "peaceful expression" in the search box You might > find this entertaining as I did . Valky: You're welcome Neri, *snort!* LOL, the peaceful expression wound its tentacles round us so incedentally. Say no more > Neri: > Regarding the post humus bleeding, I'm not a pathologist, and > neither is JKR, but it sounds logical to me that if a person had a > nasty poison in his stomach for many minutes then an internal > bleeding might occur. If this person is then thrown from the top of > a tower and lands on his back, it seems reasonable the blow would > make a bit of this blood trickle out of his mouth, even if his heart > stopped three or four seconds before that. Valky: You know, I do agree with that. My only difficulty is levelling the weigh between these logical but not essentially canonical assumptions, and the thought that the books describe in detail the precise effect of instantaneous death without embellishment in five clear cut scenes, one almost entirely looks to be shown for the sake of demonstrating AK, just to then deviate dramatically from this established normal without cause or intent. > Neri: > Regarding the "customary look of terror", being wary now of anything > that isn't cited canon I went looking and found Cedric's expression > is "slightly surprised". It's only the Riddles who have "a look of > terror" on their face. Valky: Yes, as I said I find it ambiguous, a frozen expression IMO seems to be the canon correct model. And that expression does not necessarily need to reflect a single emotion, I believe it would vary according to the victims emotions at the time of death. Dumbledore, as Nora pointed out, is one character we can definitely deem capable of having an expression bearing the marks of acceptance. And even closed eyes, but I wouldn't be positive that he would close them to someone he knew was betraying him. > Neri: > Another interesting inconsistency I found is that in the Frank Brice > case and in the spider case there's a "rushing sound" after the > green light, which in the spider case is further described "as > though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air". > This quite distinct sound is *not* described in Cedric's case, nor > in the fox case, nor in any of the many AKs in the MoM, nor on the > tower. So did Cedric too die from something else? And what > about the fox? Valky: The rushing sound, I have to admit is genuinely inconsistent in the text. However both Cedric and the Fox fell frozen in the instant of their deaths and this is widely established as the true Avada Kedavra by characters we just cannot doubt would cast it with indifference. Therefore I say that the fox and Cedric definitively *died* of Avada Kedavra, but Dumbledore did not fall instantly dead and hence his moment of death is positively questionable. Neri: > As a whole, if JKR meant for the AK symptoms to be a clue I'd say > she did a pretty lousy job describing them consistently throughout > the series. Valky: I OTOH believe Jo did an excellent job of sneaking consistency through the veil of mysterious constrast. The consistency exists only in the case of living beings, who are struck by an absolutely established successful Avada Kedavra. And five cases in six books is not *really* an insignificant pattern, is it. > Neri > > If, however, she went for the most appropriate dramatic > effect in each specific context, I'd say she just about nailed it. > Valky: I won't refute that, even if I am right, I would still say JKR aimed for this on at least one level. And if I am wrong, I will be happy to have you and Alla and Co serve me up a feast of crow. Valky From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Mon Oct 17 12:29:45 2005 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:29:45 -0000 Subject: Draco, the UV, and the First Time - The Overblown Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141748 > bboyminn: > Overal, I see the whole Unbreakable Vow process riddled with > loopholes, and these specific Vows are certainly vague and > uncertain. I think fandom has made far too much of these Vows. > I see this whole Unbreakable Vow thing as way overblown. > > zgirnius: > I agree about the loopholes. I felt the 'seem to fail' was going to > be the operative loophole. DD has a private talk with Draco and > gets him into 'witness protection', so Draco never tries again, so > he never seems to fail. It even seemed to be working, until the > Death Eaters showed up. > > You could be right about the UV being overblown. But I think we are > *supposed* to believe the Vow is important. The visually impressive > and portentous Vow-making process (the kneeling, the hand-clasping, > the fiery bands, Bella's astounded reaction) suggest to the reader > that this is the Plot Device of Doom. Also, the Vow has pride of > place in the book. It forms the climax of one of the very rare > Harry-free chapters . Now, this could be JKR's way of > leading us by the nose...or it could be her saying to us, 'Wake up > and take notice, folks!' First of all I apologize for replying after a couple of days, I was unable to do so earlier. Let me quote the relevant third vow again: Begin quote, HBP pg 41 (British ed.) 'And, should it prove necessary ... If it seems Draco will fail ...' whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away), 'will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?' End quote Not only Snape took the vow, but he told so to DD. I am aware that it is consistent with canon that he distorted the story, for instance he may have mentioned two vows but not the third --- I am aware of this but as you will see this is not my guess. Several months and chapters later, Harry overhears Snape and Draco; he tells what he heard to DD: Begin quote, HBP pg 335-336 Dumbledore listened to Harry's story with an impassive face. When Harry had finished he did not speak for a few moments, then said, 'Thank you for telling me this, Harry, but I suggest that you put it out of your mind. I do not think that it is of great importance.' 'Not of great importance?' repeated Harry incredulously. 'Professor, did you understand -- ?' 'Yes, Harry, blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower, I understood everything you told me,' said Dumbledore, a little sharply. 'I think you might even consider the possibility that I understood more than you did. ...' End quote Now, DD should not be using this language unless he is quite sure there *is* something he understands and Harry does not. We know from the tower scene that DD already knows Draco is trying to kill DD but my guess is that there is *more*. It also requires explanation how DD could possibly consider the UV thing 'not of great importance'. My theory is the following. The third vow starts with 'if necessary'. Necessary for what? For whatever concerns the speaker (Narcissa), I would say. Now, I think we all agree Narcissa did not go looking for Snape because she is concerned abaout how long DD survives: what she *is* concerned about is the safety of Draco. So I read that condition as 'if necessary for the safety of Draco...'. Now Snape knows DD well enough to figure out it will *never* be necessary for the safety of Draco for Snape to 'do the deed' at all: DD is as concerned about the safety of his student Draco as Narcissa is, and is far more powerful than her. In other words, Snape's hand twitches because his mind his working fast, but he figures out in time that the vow is basically void. Narcissa and Belatrix, of course, have a very different view of DD and think that if Draco does something stupid then his life will be in danger. So we see Snape successfully fooling Belatrix into thinking him loyal to the Dark Lord. Snape, of course, explains all this to DD and it is therefore quite true that DD understands the situation far better than Harry does. Nicolau From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 17 14:08:43 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:08:43 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141749 Alla: Of course Tom Riddle had not committed that many sins at eleven as > what Snape probably did when he came back, BUT what he did to those > children in the cave WAS pretty bad, no? Hadn't Dumbledore owed to > his other students to keep them safe from someone who showed the > potential to be the psychopath already at such early age? > > I am sure Dumbledore thought about all of this, right? And still he > CHOSE to disregard all of it in order to give Tom Riddle second > chance? > > Don't you think that it may not be such a stretch to assume that in > case of Snape, Dumbledore operated the same way? That Snape COULD > be dangerous, but as long as he is remorseful, let's take him in? > > Had I mentioned that I LOVE ESE!Snape too? :-) Magpie: Actually, Dumbledore does the *opposite* thing with Snape as he does with Tom Riddle, imo. With Tom he simply keeps the uneasy feelings he had at first meeting him to himself and lets other people come to their own conclusions about him. When he's still uneasy (more so) later on he refuses to let him teach at the school, but when Tom's a kid he lets other people make up their own minds. With Snape Dumbledore doesn't keep his opinion to himself. He vouches for him again and again: "He's no more a Death Eater than I am." Anybody who has a problem with Snape working on their side winds up just trusting Dumbledore's public assurance that he's okay. That's a rare thing with DD, to step in and direct someone's feelings that way, and it seems to me he usually has a good reason for it when he does it. That's why I assume the question of exactly why DD trusted Snape was going to be in book VII. Harry jumps to the conclusion it's because he showed remorse after Harry was targetted, Snape himself claims to have "spun a tale of remorse" but these things (as opposed to plenty other things in canon) struck me as things I obviously shouldn't take at face value. Especially with Dumbledore, iirc, seeming to almost give Harry more information about why he trusts Snape and then deciding against it. That doesn't mean Snape couldn't be DDM, ESE or OFH, but I'm going to have to hope that ultimately this makes for a good story where Dumbledore didn't have any other reason to believe him than the one Snape gives to the DEs, who are evil and so lack the imagination to understand good. Yes, this is the guy who hoped Snape could teach Harry something about Occlumency (not knowing Harry would look in the Pensieve), but he's also the guy who sometimes talks us through the mindset of the bad guy. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 17 14:18:19 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:18:19 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141750 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Neri: > > Another interesting inconsistency I found is that in the Frank Brice > > case and in the spider case there's a "rushing sound" after the > > green light, which in the spider case is further described "as > > though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air". > > This quite distinct sound is *not* described in Cedric's case, nor > > in the fox case, nor in any of the many AKs in the MoM, nor on the > > tower. So did Cedric too die from something else? And what > > about the fox? > > Valky: > The rushing sound, I have to admit is genuinely inconsistent in the > text. Geoff: 'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say, "Kill the spare." A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the night "Avada Kedavra!" A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eylids and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him...' (GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 UK edition) Referring to your comment above,I realise it seems to be in the wrong order but how do you interpret the swishing noise? From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 17 14:21:11 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:21:11 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? /What does Dumbledore wanted on the Tower? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141751 Lupinlore: > > Are you saying DD would have made Harry sleep in a closet? Somehow I > doubt it. Pippin: He certainly kept Harry isolated and in the dark in OOP. So yeah, he would, if he thought it was necessary. It wasn't necessary, AFAWK, for the Dursleys to keep Harry in the closet. But then the closet is the least of what's wrong with the situation at the Dursleys; getting Harry a nicer bedroom would be like putting a band-aid on the Titanic. It wouldn't stop the Dursleys from being bulllies, it would only make their bullying subtler and harder to detect, like Riddle's. Lupinlore: Nor, once again, does this make DD look very good at all. Pippin: It makes Dumbledore someone who accepts the heirarchy of needs. Safety comes before attachment. People who ignore danger in order to pursue an attachment are said to be in denial. Dumbledore is not in denial about how dangerous Voldemort and his followers were, even with Voldemort apparently vanquished. Harry isn't either, which is why he has no trouble with Dumbledore's decision once he understands why it was made. Lupinlore: > DD has no rightful authority over Harry,Having made the decision, he had a responsibility, if he did indeed understand what was happening at the Dursleys, to > intervene -- very forcefully if necessary. Pippin: I don't see JKR backing away from Dumbledore knowing what went on at the Dursleys, far from it. He seems to know more than ever in HBP, even all about how they treat Dudley. But there's more going on at Privet Drive than meets the eye. For one thing, we're told in HBP that Harry has been refusing meals, which means that someone (Petunia?) is trying to see that he eats them. Perhaps some element of her better nature is trying to assert itself? If Dumbledore had come in with some heavy-handed "take better care of Harry or I'll turn you into a toad" would that part of her ever have surfaced? Or would it have strengthened the part of her that says all wizards are the enemy? I know it can be empowering for the victims of oppression to imagine that they are in their oppressor's shoes and can give them a good kicking, but I think that's not what JKR is aiming at. IMO, she's aiming at the culture of bullying, not individual bullies. If that's what she's going for, then she has to give Dumbledore some other way of dealing with the bullies than by becoming a big bad bully himself. Pippin From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 17 14:21:14 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:21:14 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141752 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > wrote: > > Neri: > > > Another interesting inconsistency I found is that in the Frank Brice > > > case and in the spider case there's a "rushing sound" after the > > > green light, which in the spider case is further described "as > > > though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air". > > > This quite distinct sound is *not* described in Cedric's case, nor > > > in the fox case, nor in any of the many AKs in the MoM, nor on the > > > tower. So did Cedric too die from something else? And what > > > about the fox? > > > > Valky: > > The rushing sound, I have to admit is genuinely inconsistent in the > > text. > > Geoff: > 'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say, "Kill > the spare." > A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the > night "Avada Kedavra!" > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eylids and he heard > something heavy fall to the ground beside him...' > > (GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 UK edition) > > Referring to your comment above,I realise it seems to be in the wrong > order but how do you interpret the swishing noise? > also, I don't have my GoF or OotP books in front of me - but doesn't Harry feel sick to his stomach when the AK whizzed past him? I believe it was in GoF. Harry didn't feel nauseated when Snape *AK*'d DD in HBP. just more food for thought. colebiancardi From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 15:36:31 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:36:31 -0000 Subject: Angels on my mind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141753 > Saraquel wrote: > I've been wondering if, in the final duel with Voldemort, Harry is > not going to be helped by the living, but the dead. One by one, > everyone that Harry loves has died, except his peers. Beyond the > veil lie four incredibly powerful souls ? DD, Sirius, Lily and James. zgirnius: I love this idea. I've seen suggestions in other threads that Harry really needs to bone up on his duelling skills and his Occlumency in Book 7, since the in "Flight of the Prince" we see he is not match for Snape in this area, let alone for Voldemort. This has rung false with me, but I've not been able to come up with anything specific as an alternative. Since I'm drawing a blank on how, exactly, the dead could help Harry in the final battle, I'll try to help out by adding some additional support for your speculation. I'm excerpting a question and answer from JKR's World Book Day Chat on 4/4/2004. Question: Why did you kill Sirius? It made me very sad :( JK Rowling replies: I'm really, really sorry. I didn't want to do it, but there was a reason. If you think you can forgive me, keep reading, you'll find out. I have not seen any added value to her story from the death of Sirius in Book 6...which suggests his death will somehow serve the plot of Book 7. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 17 16:01:14 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:01:14 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141754 > > Geoff: > > 'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice > say, "Kill > > the spare." > > A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to > the > > night "Avada Kedavra!" > > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eylids and he heard > > something heavy fall to the ground beside him...' > > > > (GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 UK edition) > > > > Referring to your comment above,I realise it seems to be in the > wrong > > order but how do you interpret the swishing noise? > colebiancardi: > also, I don't have my GoF or OotP books in front of me - but doesn't > Harry feel sick to his stomach when the AK whizzed past him? I > believe it was in GoF. Harry didn't feel nauseated when Snape *AK*'d > DD in HBP. > > just more food for thought. Ceridwen: Apparently, the nausea comes from his headache: (GoF pg 638 US) A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar reached such a pitch that he retched, and then it diminished; terrified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. On the rushing sound: (GoF pg 15) There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumpled. He was dead before he hit the floor. Two hundred miles away, the boy called Harry Potter awoke with a start. And, since I have the book out, on the look of the Riddles, page 2: "Lying there with their eyes wide open! Cold as ice! Still in their dinner things!" (Maid's witness) ...and page four, the autopsy: The police had never read an odder report. A team of doctors had examined the bodies and had concluded that none of the Riddles had been poisoned, stabbed, shot, strangled, suffocated, or (as far as they could tell) harmed at all. In fact (the report continued, in a tone of unmistakable bewiderment), the Riddles all appeared to be in perfect health - apart from the fact that they were all dead. The doctors did note (as though determined to find something wrong with the bodies) that each of the Riddles had a look of terror upon his or her face - but as the frustrated police said, whoever heard of three people being *frightened* to death? ...And for looks, Cedric again, now dead, pg. 638: For a second that contained an eternity, Harry stared into Cedric's face, at his open gray eyes, blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house, at his half-open mouth, which looked slightly surprised. I mean, as long as I've got the book out, right? The spider, pg. 216 US: There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air - instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead. Several of the students stifled cries; Ron had thrown himself backward and almost toppled off his seat as the spider skidded toward him. Ceridwen, who thinks she might as well cover all the bases she remembers while she has the book out. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 16:19:02 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:19:02 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141755 > > CV: Apparently not. Teen!Snape used sectupsempra on James. > > > > Snape's Worst Memory (p 647, US ed.) > > > > "Bad luck, Prongs," said Sirius briskly, turning back to > Snape. "OY!" > > > > But too late; Snape had directed his wand straight at James; > > there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on the side of > > James's face,splattering his robes with blood. > > > > CV > > ~aussie~ > How's your Latin? or Spanish at least? > > "SECTUP" sounds like "to diSECT" like what macabre biology teachers > get students to do with frogs .... so that part is "to CUT" > > "SEMPRA" sounds like "siempre" in Spanish. That means "ALWAYS". > ~aussie~ > So the curse used against James may have been "SECTUP", but > not "SECTUPSEMPRA" causing multiple cuts like Draco got. > ~aussie~ zgirnius: Hi! I agree with Constance Vigilance on this, Snape was using Sectumsempra in the Pensieve scene. I've kept her canon description of this instance of the spell, let's see how Harry uses it. "Sectumsempra!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly. Blood spurted from Malfoy's gace and chest as though he had been slashed with an invisible sword. To me this suggests not 'multiple' cuts, but exactly two (face and chest), the same as would be produced by a single wide slash upwards with a sword which hit both chest and face Real Life. (Already more than enough to be lethal in RL...) The reason for the difference in effect could be attributable to the differences we are shown in the two instances. One is the wand motion. Snape points, in a controlled manner, and hits the (limited) target he is aiming for. Result: a surgical cut to a specific are of James' face. Harry casts the curse having no idea what it does, while in a desperate position, and 'wildly'. Result: a wide and deep gash across a good part of Draco's upper body. 'Cuts always', the translation of the curse's name you offer, is open to more than one interpretation. For causing multiple cuts with a simple curse, wouldn't you want 'cuts often' or 'cuts a lot'? (Souvent or beaucoup in French, my romance language, no idea what those are in Spanish or Latin.) Perhaps it can cut into anything and cuts always in that sense? From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 14:00:59 2005 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:00:59 -0000 Subject: AgileTonks/Tonks is Tonks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141756 Catlady wrote: > > > Tonks in OoP can't walk down the hall without tripping over the > > > troll's-leg umbrella stand, but in HBP she can jump off a moving > > > train and land standing up on her feet. Snip Beatrice23: It seems to me that Tonks is clumsy more in a domestic setting than in other settings, which might reflect that she is not domestic like Mrs. Weasley or her mother. Notice that she breaks a plate in the Dursley's house, trips over the umbrella stand in 12 GP, etc. Tonks admits that she "never got the knack of householdy spells" (OOTP from memory). Perhaps it is in the domestic sphere where her clumsiness gets the better of her. Notice also that Lupin is present when a lot of her tripping occurs, or when she is preoccupied with him in HBP. Her clumsiness may manifest itself when she is nervous which may have been a subtle clue about her feelings for Lupin, explain why she was clumsy in her auror exams, but in battle or in her job she is competent and confident of her abilities and thus can be agile when necessary. Beatrice23 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 16:54:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:54:59 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR?/ Some spoilers for Les Miserables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141757 > Elyse here: > Everyone keeps talking about these mistakes that Dumbledore made, but > I myself do not believe that what he did amounted to a mistake. Alla: Oh, well, I believe that Dumbledore made plenty of mistakes precisely because he forgot how " normal people" feel( I also believe that JKR in interview back that idea up - that Dumbledore's wisdom lead him to make mistakes and that Dumbledore himself admits to making mistakes at the end of OOP), but that is the matter of interpretation of course. > > o> Alla: > > I would not have brought eleven year old psychopath to the school > I > > am in charge with, because I would be afraid that other people may > > be hurt by my decision. > > > > Elyse: I really dont want to sound rude saying this, but there's no > other way around it, so forgive me. > Who are you to decide whether an eleven year old is a psychopath? > I doubt a single psychiatrist would in his or her professional > opinion (ie knowing they might be sued for it) would declare Tom > Riddle a dangerous,unredeemable,psychopath,who should not be allowed > the privilege of education, based on that little interview. > It would require a lot of therapy before he could be justifiably > called a psychopath, and even then, nobody would have dared deny him > an education (although since he was already in control of his magical > powers, education is a moot point anyway). Alla: Hmmm. Who am I to decide? I am the reader of the series, who as ANY other reader has a right to decide how to label a fictional character. Based on what I read about psychopathy Tom Riddle gives me an impression of psychopath. Is it going to be hundred percent correct label? Of course not, I am NOT a psychiatrist, but I don't think I have to be for talking about fiction. For example, Harry after he had been through a Graveyard and Sirius right after Azkaban strike me as quite accurate portrayal of people with PTSD. Sirius stuck at Grimmauld place strikes me as VERY accurate portrayal of depressed person. Does it mean that they had all the symptoms that RL psychiatrist or psychologist needs to give such diagnosis? I am guessing that the answer would be NO, but based on the general impression I am convinced that they have PTSD and depression. If you want to chalenge me on this one, please do so, but as I am saying below, it is really not that important for me how to call young Tom besides the fact that he was dangerous at such young age. What IS important to me is that Dumbledore KNEW that Tom was dangerous and did not do anything about it, except deciding to keep an eye on him and apparently not doing a very good job out of it, IMo. Elyse: > He may have certain qualities that point in this direction, yes, but > that could be because he never received proper guidance, never got > the love, the moral and ethical persuasion that others did. > Is it too much to presume that he might make friends at Hogwarts > where he would be among other wizards of his own kind? > IMO, this what Dumbledore believed or at the least, hoped for. > And based on this, Dumbledore chose to give him not his second > chance, but his first one. Alla: Actually, for the purpose of this argument I am not even set on "psychopath" label, I will quite settle for psychopathic tendencies, or even "dangerous for others" label, since that is what matters for my argument about Dumbledore. Oh, and I am NOT comfortable with many "essentialism" qualities of Potterverse, but I do believe that JKR's world has them, whether I like them or not. Tom Riddle never loved anyone, after all according to her. So, while I may not like the description of eleven year old in such bad light, I accept it as what author intended.Again, this is just my interpretation of JKR's intent. Second chances or first chances are good, BUT Dumbledore deciding to give Tom Riddle a chance lead to a disaster, IMO. I was just trying to show that putting trust in one soul is the thing which Dumbledore does quite easily ,even if he suspects that it could hurt others. Elyse: If Dumbledore had > warned them before he reached Hogwarts, would any teacher have > believed him? They would have thought that Dumbledore was simply > prejudiced; how could sweet,smart Tom Riddle be a psychopath? Alla: All teachers seemed to be quite eager to trust Snape based ONLY on Dumbledore's words, so yes, I think if Dumbledore queitly told Slughorn to keep an eye on Mr. Riddle, I think many disastrous events would have been avoided, because Slughorn would have been at least listened out of respect to Dumbledore, if not because he would genuinely believed so. > Elyse: Yep, and let the "Chosen One" have the pleasure of choosing > which way he wanted to die: at the hands of Regenerated!Voldemort or > under Bellatrix's motherly gaze. > Come on, be fair. It was either certain death and victory for > Voldemort or being abused, but staying alive. And I dont see how it > was possible for Dumbledore to foresee exactly how bad their > treatment of Harry was. Alla: I don't really want to go into discussing Dumbledore's speech in OOP again, but nowhere in that speech he says that he ahd no other options, as far as I can remember. He said you would be the safest, where your mother blood dwells, he said that their DE out on the loose, but as I said earlier, it was not hundred percent clear to me. But yeah, I think that this is what JKR intended - to be left with Dursleys or die, I just think that she did not convey it clear enough AND without Dumbledore singing a different tune in HBP, he comes out ( to me only of course) in a bad light after OOP for at least not interfering and checking up on Harry. > > > > Alla: > > I would NOT let the former member of terrorist organization > anywhere > > NEAR my students, because I don't know , I would be worried that > > this man may had many dangerous psychological issues left over his > > glory days and he may have take it out on my students. > > > Elyse: Well, whats the point of being redeemed if no one is willing > to give you a job and ostracize you because you *may* have > psychological issues left over? By your way of thinking, we should > give life sentences to all convicts, shouldnt we, because they *may* > have psychological issues left over from their time in jail? > I read this fabulous Victor Hugo story years ago. I think it was from > Les Miserables but I'm not sure. Alla: You missed my point completely, I am sorry for being unclear. The reason I wrote the tirade about what I would not have done if I were Dumbledore was to show that in many instances Dumbledore is BETTER person than I am, but also in some instances his trust in people has to be balanced with other issues, such as safety of the other people he is responsible for. I am NOT saying that he should not have given Snape a second chance ( although when I am not in charitable mood, I happen to believe that Snape failed that chance), I think it is a GOOD thing on Dumbledore part, BUT I also think that it was irresponsible of Dumbledore not to think about his students before he did so, IMO. I am saying that Dumbledore with his tremendous connections everywhere could have find a job for Snape for example somewhere in the WW analogy of potion research institute, or something like that, but to keep him away from children. Oh, and before I get the objection that this is needed for the sake of the story, because I used to get them, let me disclaim again - I KNOW this and without Snape being in Hogwarts we would have no story, BUT the characters do not know that they are in the story ( ugh, I am always having trouble explaining it correctly), so from the point of view of Dumbledore ,who does not know that he is in the story, accepting Snape to be a teacher makes little sense to me. Trust him? Yes. Help him to find a way to make a living? Absolutely. But NOT endager the students, because Dumbledore decided to give hima second chance. To be fair, I think Dumbledore suffers from having to wear too many hats, way too many - He has different responsibilities as Headmaster, as Leader of OOP and as spiritual leader of the light ( that mostly speculative title, but I think it is there - sort of lead by example) and those responsibilities sometimes require to take very opposing actions, IMO. Oh, and I LOVE "Les Miserables". Talk about great story of the redemption. The difference why the story of Jean Valjan worked so well for me as redemption story is because we SEE Valjan being genuinely remorseful for his sins ( which IMO are so small and insignificant in comparison to Snape's - he stole because he was, but that is not the point) AND we see him being nice to all people and keep sacrificing his own happiness for Kosette and Marius ( spelling?). I believed Valjan remorse because I read about it on the pages over and over again, I cried when he died. Going back to Snape, I think that his remorse is only hinted to in very brief passing, everything else is just us filling out the blanks. > Elyse: To make a short story slightly longer, yes trust is an > essential part of his character. That is exactly why JKR should not > make Snape evil. Because then she would imply that the essential > feature of the epitome of good is such a tragic flaw. Alla: Since I think that Dumbledore having flaws is pretty much established in the books already, I would be perfectly fine with such implication and yes, just because someone did something bad ( killed Dumbledore, IMO) does not mean that he cannot take a different path in the future. > > Elyse, who does not think Dumbledore made any huge mistakes > > P.S. I know this is totally unrelated to the topic, but someone > (Betsy?) asked before, how people can say Snape would not do such- and- > such a thing because it would be OOC, and wondered how people could > possibly *know* Snape so well. > I want to know how come people keep saying Dumbledore /would/ do > certain things, because it would/would not be in character. I know > that we have more info on DD than Snape but we still dont know all > that much abot his character > Alla: I think that was Nora,actually,who wondered how people can know Snape so well that they can be sure that his scream at the end of HBP ( I, the HBP) was OOC, but in any event, here is the post by Hickengruendler, who explains my POV pretty well. :-) I absolutely believe that we have MUCH more information on Dumbledore than on Snape and we can speculate with more certainty ( does not mean that we would be correct, of course) whether at least those moments are IC for Dumbledore or not. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141745 Thank you, Hickengruendler. Even when we disagree, you can explain what I meant better than I did. Love your posts, always. :-) Of course, JMO, Alla. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 17 17:20:59 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:20:59 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR?/ Dumbledore's peaceful expression. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141758 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I would not have done MANY things that > Dumbledore did. :-) I would not have > brought eleven year old psychopath to the > school I am in charge with In all fairness to Dumbledore, he was not in charge of the school at the time and the decision was not his. And although he knew the boy had issues neither he not anyone else could foretell the depth of his evil. > I would NOT have left a baby with muggles > whose my Deputy Headmaster was able to > determine are "the worst kind You would if it was the only way to protect that baby from the psychopath you mentioned earlier. > I would NOT let the former member of > terrorist organization anywhere NEAR > my students I agree with that one. Eggplant From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 17:25:25 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:25:25 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141759 > ~aussie~ > How's your Latin? or Spanish at least? > > "SECTUP" sounds like "to diSECT" like what macabre biology teachers > get students to do with frogs .... so that part is "to CUT" > > "SEMPRA" sounds like "siempre" in Spanish. That means "ALWAYS". > > So the curse used against James may have been "SECTUP", but > not "SECTUPSEMPRA" causing multiple cuts like Draco got. > ~aussie~ > CV: That was a typo on my part. Sorry about that. The spell that put a gash on James was issued silently. I still say it was a sectumsempra. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Oct 17 18:34:28 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:34:28 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] NOT AGAIN! - WW Population References: <1129535601.1265.61623.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001301c5d349$6a296be0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 141760 Steve wrote: >First let me say this is just some information, I AM NOT trying to >start the whole 'how big is the Wizard World' debate all over again. Oh, go on... >CIA World Book of Facts. >http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html >United Kingdom Did wonder whether you were going to say that the CIA had an estimate for the wizarding population, for a second. Now that _would_ be an interesting twist! >Sadly, it's difficult to break the population downs into smaller >division, so we will have to work with averages. The census figures give an absolutely accurate snapshot (try http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/ if you're interested). You might also want to add in the Irish figures if you're of the belief that we're talking about the British Isles rather than the United Kingdom but the Irish population is much smaller, around 4 million, IIRC What _do_ wizarding folk call their country, anyway, not having a king? >Ratio of the Total Population of the UK to Students of Secondary >School Age= >60,441,457 / 5,468,225 = 11.05:1 > >So roughly one student for every 11 citizens. I recall working it out from the census and coming to roughly the same figure. >If Hogwarts is 280 student then by extrapolation the wizarding world is [snipped] >Seems rather small, but I guess if you look at various towns with that >approximate population, they are significant and diverse communtities. Following an off-list conversation with Carol, I found some stats that show that the average size for secondary schools in Wales is around 950, which we felt might explain the "big Hogwarts" figure of 1000 students. >One additional comment, Wizard appear to live close to or slightly >over 200 years of age. That throws things off significantly. Only Marchbanks has to be over 200, given that Dumbledore is over 150. Traditional RW age is threescore years and ten. Normal assumption is that a RW generation is 30 years. Multiplying by 3 seems to work reasonably well for the WW. Average age at death would be around 210. Each generation is roughly 90 years (having it at 30 years would mean that everyone would be drowning in several times great grandparents and several times removed cousins, leading to a totally different social structure than the one depicted in the books!) That in turn would mean that the proportion of Hogwarts aged children in the population would be a third of what it is for the Muggle UK. However, the other wild card is that while Hogwarts is open to all, not every invitation is taken up. What proportion you conclude don't go can lead to all sorts of alternative conclusions. hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Mon Oct 17 18:17:02 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:17:02 -0000 Subject: SAD DENIAL help? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141761 Terry James wrote in 63582: > "But I have read all those who truly loved Sirius and are in > mourning, and it is to those people that I address this invitation: > Feel free to visit the U.S.S. SAD DENIAL! (Sirius' Awful Death Didn't > End Neatly: It's A Lie!, acronym courtesy Tabouli, thank you!) In > deference to the HPfGU international community, the U.S.S. will stand > for "UnSinkable Ship". Ship's motto: "No body, no deady," courtesy > Heather." Luciana: I'd like to visit, but I'm new here. How do I visit, exactly? Could anyone who is a member of the SAD DENIAL crew, or who knows the history of this theory, provide links to posts or threads discussing this theory? Thank you very much, and I hope the ship is still sailing. cheers Luciana From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 17 20:50:39 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:50:39 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: colebiancardi: > > also, I don't have my GoF or OotP books in front of me - but > doesn't > > Harry feel sick to his stomach when the AK whizzed past him? I > > believe it was in GoF. Harry didn't feel nauseated when Snape > *AK*'d > > DD in HBP. > > > > just more food for thought. Ceridwen: > Apparently, the nausea comes from his headache: > (GoF pg 638 US) > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard > something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar > reached such a pitch that he retched, and then it diminished; > terrified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. Geoff: I would have quoted this sentence also. My take is that this is because of the nearness of Voldemort - and his vicarious involvement in the Avada Kedavra - rather than the AK itself. From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 17 20:58:30 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:58:30 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141763 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" > wrote: > > colebiancardi: > > > also, I don't have my GoF or OotP books in front of me - but > > doesn't > > > Harry feel sick to his stomach when the AK whizzed past him? I > > > believe it was in GoF. Harry didn't feel nauseated when Snape > > *AK*'d > > > DD in HBP. > > > > > > just more food for thought. > > Ceridwen: > > Apparently, the nausea comes from his headache: > > (GoF pg 638 US) > > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard > > something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar > > reached such a pitch that he retched, and then it diminished; > > terrified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. > > Geoff: > I would have quoted this sentence also. My take is that this is > because of the nearness of Voldemort - and his vicarious involvement > in the Avada Kedavra - rather than the AK itself. > thanks, ceridwen & Geoff. See what happens WHEN I don't have my books in front of me? I just remembered that Harry got sick when the AK happened. colebiancardi (who wishes JKR would have given us bullet points on how an AK looks, feels & works) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 21:35:34 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:35:34 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141764 > >>Lupinlore: > Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. When I see him interact > with Harry in some way not determined or deeply colored by > nastiness and bitterness, I will agree he has grown complex and > interesting, as opposed to boring and pathetic. Until then, he's > Little Johnny One Note who badly needs to be spanked and sent to > bed without his supper. Betsy Hp: So, until Snape suddenly treats Harry nicely he's not a complex character for you? It sounds to me like you're not commenting on JKR's writing style, you're commenting on Snape's personality. And again I say, the very fact that you dislike the character enough to insult him as you do (Snape, you are so very childish, etc.) suggests that JKR has created a realistic, albeit nasty and bitter, character. You find his bitterness (and his expression of it, I'm guessing) unforgivable, and I take a different view. But a character being bitter doesn't automatically mean that character is flat. I doubt we'll ever agree on how we *feel* about the character of Snape, but I think we can agree that Snape does garner some sort of feeling. Which is why I'd say the characterization JKR has done *is* dynamic. Betsy Hp (who has some totally different ideas on what should be done with Snape ) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 22:26:39 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:26:39 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141765 > > >>Lupinlore: > > Well, we'll have to disagree on that one. When I see him interact > > with Harry in some way not determined or deeply colored by > > nastiness and bitterness, I will agree he has grown complex and > > interesting, as opposed to boring and pathetic. > Betsy Hp: > So, until Snape suddenly treats Harry nicely he's not a complex > character for you? It sounds to me like you're not commenting on > JKR's writing style, you're commenting on Snape's personality. Alla: Oh, I hate speaking for someone else, especially since in this instance I don't feel exactly as Lupinlore does, but I can at least say for myself. I do NOT find Snape's character boring at all, BUT I absolutely do NOT find him dynamic either. He is not changing, he is the same through the books, bitter, nasty, hateful man, who MAY be on the side of Light. I am not sure if this is what Lupinlore meant, but IF Snape would treat Harry differently, it would mean to me , that Snape is changing, that his character undergoes some kind of development. Because revelations and dynamic are not the same to me at all. The blanks about Snape are getting filled slowly, but surely, but does he react to the world arround him in any way differently than he was in book 1? I do not see it. That is another reason why OFH! Snape is so attractive to me , it will allow Snape to undergo changes through the books Betsy Hp: But a character > being bitter doesn't automatically mean that character is flat. Alla: I agree with you - it does not automatically mean that, BUT the character being bitter and ONLY bitter all the time, does mean to me that he is flat or static. Actually, Snape is NOT the only example of the non dynamic characters in the books to me. I would put almost all adults in that category, actually. That is taking into consideration the fact that the only changes we do see is in their interactions with Harry. I would put only Dumbledore and Sirius in the characters who underwent some changes ( not revelations, changes)- Dumbledore hopefully learned some lessons for himself at the end of OOP,so I think that was a significant change in him. And Sirius communicated with Harry differently in OOP ( those are more negative changes, but still changes IMO) BUT alas, the only adult characters which IMO got some dynamics are now dead. Maybe I should be grateful that JKR does not give Lupin any dynamics? What is better - developed dead character or one note alive one? :-) Honestly , does anybody have any examples of dynamics through the books in adult characters? because I don't remember anything else right now. I think that Trio undergoes the most dynamiuc development and I absolutely think that as of now those three are the most complex and well developed characters in the books. They are changing every time we meet them, their reactions to the same events are changing. NOT because we are guessing, but because we are seeing it, reading about it. Betsy Hp: > I doubt we'll ever agree on how we *feel* about the character of > Snape, but I think we can agree that Snape does garner some sort of > feeling. Which is why I'd say the characterization JKR has done *is* > dynamic. Alla: I disagree - not on the fact that Snape provokes some strong feelings, because he sure does from me, but that he is dynamic character, because to me dynamic means change , NOT change in Harry's POV, but change in character and I see no change in Snape. We learn new things about him, but the character stays the same , IMO. JMO, Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 23:23:10 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:23:10 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141766 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > But a character being bitter doesn't automatically mean that > > character is flat. > >>Alla: > I agree with you - it does not automatically mean that, BUT the > character being bitter and ONLY bitter all the time, does mean to > me that he is flat or static. Actually, Snape is NOT the only > example of the non dynamic characters in the books to me. I would > put almost all adults in that category, actually. > > I think that Trio undergoes the most dynamiuc development and I > absolutely think that as of now those three are the most complex > and well developed characters in the books. > Betsy Hp: But it would be beyond weird if the adult characters changed as much as children who've gone from age eleven to sixteen. To be dynamic, or fully fleshed out, a character doesn't have to change political affiliations or personalities. (In fact, I think that can be a way to create a false sense of depth where none actually exists.) Let's take McGonagall as an example. She's pretty much the same character from when she first transforms from a cat in the opening of PS/SS to her first staff meeting as Headmistress of Hogwarts in HBP. But that doesn't mean she's not dynamic. She reacts differently to Dumbledore than she does to Umbridge. She's one way with Harry, another way with Neville, and another way with Hermione. IOW, she's a fully-fleshed character rather than a simple stereotype. But she is who she is. Even with relatively little page space JKR has managed to create, IMO, a three dimensional character who doesn't sound just one note whenever she appears. Snape is the same way. He reacts differently to Dumbledore than he does to Umbridge. He's one way with Harry, another way with Neville, and another way with Draco. All of his various reactions to the varity of situations JKR has placed him in play true to his character but his reactions are not always the same. He is not, contrary to Lupinlore's claims, a one note character. Snape does behave differently, within the scope of his character, his personality, in different situations. In fact, even the children remain true to their characters as they've grown. Ron at sixteen is different, in many ways from the little eleven year old boy we met on the train to Hogwarts. But in essentials he's the same. He's still got a good sense of humor, an easy going friendliness, etc. And that's to the good, I think. It's character consistency, and it's the mark of a good writer. When I was a very little girl I had a set of books that had giant circle headed characters with names like, Mr. Happy, and, Mr. Nervous. Mr. Happy was always happy, and Mr. Nervous was always (you guessed it!) nervous. They were one note characters. Snape is not Mr. Bitter. He's not bitter when he interacts with Neville or McGonagall. He wasn't bitter when he interacted with Bellatrix and Narcissa. He certainly wasn't bitter when he was interacting with Sirius in OotP. (Intensely curious, amused, and I think rather satisfied were his chief emotions at the time, IMO.) Heck, he's not even always bitter when he's dealing with Harry. Snape certainly expresses bitterness at times. But it's not his single emotional response to everything that happens to him. Because Snape is dynamic, he reacts differently under different circumstances. Because he is a consistent character, his reactions ring true. And because he's still a bit of a mystery, sometimes his reactions are unpredictable. Which, again, speaks well of JKR. Betsy Hp From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 23:34:50 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:34:50 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141767 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Snape is the same way. He reacts differently to Dumbledore than he > does to Umbridge. He's one way with Harry, another way with > Neville, and another way with Draco. All of his various reactions > to the varity of situations JKR has placed him in play true to his > character but his reactions are not always the same. He is not, > contrary to Lupinlore's claims, a one note character. Snape does > behave differently, within the scope of his character, his > personality, in different situations. Where I hesitate is in equating 'different reactions' with 'directed change', which is what I would have to include in my definition of 'dynamic'. Snape reacts differently to different people--quelle surprise. But have we seen any cases of his reactions or engagements with the same people undergoing evolution, development, re- evaluation? Some listies argued for the subtlest of textual indicators that Snape saw Harry in a different light during the Occlumency lessons, but I have to admit that I've never seen that. His relationship with Harry has been one-note: ergo, Snape has not been dynamic in that relationship. Again, we're getting back to the development in the present vs. revelation of the past (or even include in that category revelation of present attitude) dichotomy, which I think has legs. Have we actually *seen* Snape change on anything, in the same sort of way that a development section leads from one thematic area into another before our eyes and ears? We have it attested in the past, but we've also had the suspicion raised that it never really happened, either. -Nora notes that even a rotational development can be dynamic, because it has direction, not merely different reactions... From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 17 23:41:16 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:41:16 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141768 Hickengruendler: I snipped a part of Alla's post, in which she stated, that most adult characters, including Snape are non-dynamic. I agree with this completely. I don't even think I would call Dumbledore or Sirius dynamic. Maybe some aspects of their personalities, but not all. Alla: > Honestly , does anybody have any examples of dynamics through the > books in adult characters? because I don't remember anything else > right now. Hickengruendler: They are far and between. I would go even further and say that everyone, who is older as Harry (with this I mean years older, not simply months like Ron and Hermione) doesn't really change. The twins are certainly the same as ever. Percy got worse, but did he really change or was it just because the circumstances changed and his real personality shone through? (And by the way, I am still a firm believer that he will redeem himself in the end, and that the family bears some responsibility as well). Sirius I would put in the same category as Percy. His change mostly reflects the situation in which he is. It are simply different aspects of a character that sine through, and I wouldn't call it a real personality change. The most notable exception would IMO be Tonks in HBP, who basically changed her whole personality. But this was explained at the end of the book as her being love sick, and she did seem to be her old self again in the last chapter, wearing pink hair on the funeral, (which I would find inappropriate, if I didn't think, that Dumbledore would probably have liked it), therefore the change was only temporarily. Then there is, surprisingly, Barty Crouch senior, who in fact changed a lot, if we compare the cold-hearted man during the Death Eater trials and even during the interrogation of Winky after the Dark Mark appeared on the sky, with the broken man shortly before he was killed. Granted, he was weakened by the Imperius Curse, but he also seemed to really regret some of his past choices. And, well, he's dead, too. While McGonagall's overall personality did not change, her behaviour towards Trelawney certainly did. I would call this a development, even if it happened in very extreme circumstances. It was said, that James changed while growing up, but this happened completely off-page for obvious reason. We only heard about it, and he was a youth at this time anyway. But that's pretty much all I can think about and given the amount of characters, it's not much. But I do think JKR did this on purpose, because she wants to write about Harry and to a lesser extent his friends coming into their own. The grown ups are either guidance or hindrance or both, and for this their role have to be static. It's not by accident that with the exception of Draco, only the grown-ups have talking names. They are the ones, whose personalities are already fully formed, while the kids are not. Alla: > I think that Trio undergoes the most dynamiuc development and I > absolutely think that as of now those three are the most complex and > well developed characters in the books. They are changing every time > we meet them, their reactions to the same events are changing. NOT > because we are guessing, but because we are seeing it, reading about > it. Hickengruendler: I agree again. Then I think there's Neville, who got also a pretty good development, particularly considering his change from "I'm nobody" to "He's not alone, he still got me" in OotP. Although we saw hints of his hidden strengths from the very beginning, he finally started to believe in himself. Ginny changed, too, at least in the regard that she become more confidant around Harry. But since I found her development pretty much abysmal, I'm not happy about the change. But she *is* a dynamic character as well, at least I think so. (I would rather call it two different characters, who happen to have the same name). And then maybe Draco in HBP, but I'm not sure if we can really it call it a development, or rather a realization on his part, than life as a Death eater might not be as he imagined. But this realization could at least be the first step to a change. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 17 23:54:42 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:54:42 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141769 > Betsy Hp: > Let's take McGonagall as an example. She's pretty much the same > character from when she first transforms from a cat in the opening > of PS/SS to her first staff meeting as Headmistress of Hogwarts in > HBP. But that doesn't mean she's not dynamic. She reacts > differently to Dumbledore than she does to Umbridge. She's one way > with Harry, another way with Neville, and another way with > Hermione. IOW, she's a fully-fleshed character rather than a simple > stereotype. But she is who she is. Even with relatively little > page space JKR has managed to create, IMO, a three dimensional > character who doesn't sound just one note whenever she appears. Hickengruendler: I do not think that McGonagall and Snape aren't three dimensional. And I also would agree that McGonagall is not a stereotype but a believable character in her own right. She might start as the stereotype of the old tight lipped spinster, a la Fr?ulein Rottenmeier in Heidi. But at the latest the moment she wanted Harry to become Quidditch player for Gryffindor this stereotype was broken and she started to become a more-dimensional character. Similarly, Snape started as the stereotype of the classic villain, but at the end of PS, we realized there is more to him. And now, even if Snape turns out to be villain, he will still be more than a stereotype, because the informations we got about him made him more-well arounded and more deimensional. But is this the same as dynamic? Sure, McGonagall behaves differently according who is around her, but don't we all? She doesn't develop over the course of the books. If Umbridge would have already come to Hogwarts in the second book, than McGonagall would have behaved the same way around her as she did in book 5. The same is true for Snape. Sure he acts differently around different characters, but he does consistantly so. He treated Draco pretty much the same in book 6 as in book 1, and he does the same with Harry. Which is why I think the biggest dynamic happened in the relationship between McGonagall and Trelawney, especially from McGonagall's side. This was an "the enemy of my enemy" is my friend case, but it was a change in their dynamic. Hickengruendler From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 00:10:10 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:10:10 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141770 Valky wrote: > > > I think the Peaceful expression must come directly from the description of the portrait. > > Neri responded: > > Thanks Valky, now I see it. It's Dumbledore's new *portrait* that is described as "looking peaceful and untroubled". > > > > But I don't think this is where the words "peaceful expression" came from. In fact, it's very easy to trace exactly where they came from. Just type "peaceful expression" in the search box You might find this entertaining as I did . > Carol responds: I agree that we've conflated the dead Dumbledore's expression with that of the portrait, but not without grounds. I traced the thread back as far as my own post number 137162 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137162 although the idea may go farther back still for all I know. To quote my original point: "Dumbledore's eyes are closed and he does not wear a surprised expression (like Cedric and the dead Riddles, all of them killed by unquestionable AKs). Dead Dumbledore looks remarkably like Portrait!Dumbledore, peacefully asleep." As far as I can see, this point is still valid. Cedric certainly doesn't look like he's asleep. He looks dead, as do the Riddles. DD, in contrast, appears composed. And even if you don't acknowledge that looking like he's asleep means looking peaceful (as in the portrait), there's no way to get around the closed eyes, which appear in no other known AK victim, and again indicate that he had time to compose his mind and reconcile himself to death as he fell. And that would also mean time to register shock at Snape's behavior, if that was what he felt. The post is the one in which I originally proposed that the AK might be a disguised Impedimenta. I emphasize *might* as I'm not fully persuaded myself. But anyone interested in the fake AK/failed AK angle may find it of interest. My apologies if the post led anyone to take the peaceful expression of the dead DD as a given. It's an interpretation (IMO, a valid one)--not intended to be regarded as "entertaining" in the sense you imply. Carol From muellem at bc.edu Tue Oct 18 00:38:54 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:38:54 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" > wrote: > > > > > Snape is the same way. He reacts differently to Dumbledore than he > > does to Umbridge. He's one way with Harry, another way with > > Neville, and another way with Draco. All of his various reactions > > to the varity of situations JKR has placed him in play true to his > > character but his reactions are not always the same. He is not, > > contrary to Lupinlore's claims, a one note character. Snape does > > behave differently, within the scope of his character, his > > personality, in different situations. > > Where I hesitate is in equating 'different reactions' with 'directed > change', which is what I would have to include in my definition > of 'dynamic'. Snape reacts differently to different people--quelle > surprise. But have we seen any cases of his reactions or engagements > with the same people undergoing evolution, development, re- > evaluation? > > Some listies argued for the subtlest of textual indicators that Snape > saw Harry in a different light during the Occlumency lessons, but I > have to admit that I've never seen that. His relationship with Harry > has been one-note: ergo, Snape has not been dynamic in that > relationship. Again, we're getting back to the development in the > present vs. revelation of the past (or even include in that category > revelation of present attitude) dichotomy, which I think has legs. > just to bring up a point - hasn't Harry's relationship with Snape been one-note? Other than a brief feeling sorry for him in OotP, where has Harry ever not been suspicious, resentful or had seething hatred of Snape? If anything, it has gotten worse at the end of book 6 and these feelings have been present in all 6 books. Does that mean Harry is one-note towards Snape? Perhaps the problem is that we would WANT the dynamic between Harry & Snape change - but I believe this cannot change until book 7. Why? If Snape is DDM!Snape(which I believe), he cannot be *nice*(for a lack of a better word) to Harry. Snape already has to hide a lot from Voldemort and to add that nugget ontop of all the information that he must keep from Voldy is, well, not necessary, at this point and time. And Harry cannot have any feelings other than animosity towards Snape at this important juncture, as he cannot hide his feelings at all from Voldemort. As Snape has told Draco, he has only survived this long by acting. As a doubleagent, I believe that means that his act about being loyal to Voldy has to include his distain and hatred towards Harry. Do I think that Snape secretly likes Harry? No. But I don't think Snape loathes Harry the way that Harry (and us) believes - Snape's issue is with James, not Harry. It is easy for Snape to draw on his past, perhaps, and project his feelings from James to Harry, because Harry looks just like his dad. But again, I think most of it is an act. but I could be wrong, as this is just my opinion. colebiancardi (wonders if Snape will invite Harry over for tea & biscuits in book 7 to work it all out) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 00:49:15 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:49:15 -0000 Subject: How recently did SS write in Potions book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141772 ~aussie~ wrote: > > How's your Latin? or Spanish at least? > > > > "SECTUP" sounds like "to diSECT" like what macabre biology teachers get students to do with frogs .... so that part is "to CUT" > > > > "SEMPRA" sounds like "siempre" in Spanish. That means "ALWAYS". > > > > So the curse used against James may have been "SECTUP", but > > not "SECTUPSEMPRA" causing multiple cuts like Draco got. > > ~aussie~ > > > CV: That was a typo on my part. Sorry about that. The spell that put a gash on James was issued silently. I still say it was a sectumsempra. Carol notes: Although the spell *could* be Sectumsempra, we can't know for sure because as you say it's cast silently--and if Severus knows what it can do, he's using remarkable self-control in not slashing wildly as Harry does considering how angry he is at James. However, as far as we can see in HBP, healing Sectumsempra requires an elaborate incantationlike countercurse--Snape is described as almost singing to Draco, whose wounds are clearly deep and serious, possibly fatal if untreated. James comes off, apparently, with a mere scratch-- unless we're to believe that his cut, too, was deep and deadly and would not have been curable by anyone but Severus Snape, who alone would know the countercurse for the curse he had created. Anyone besides me unable to imagine young Severus crooning a countercurse to get his enemy to stop bleeding? And there's been no mention of James having a scar from the incident (Draco had to take dittany to prevent scarring), much less that James's life was in danger from the wound. So I rather like aussie's idea that there's a separate curse for merely cutting (a superficial cut that can heal on its own). ("Sectum," not "Sectup," to correct CV's typo.) Possibly Severus, angry after the "worst memory" incident, worked out a more deadly version of this existing curse, one which would require his elaborate countercurse to save the victim. (There's no evidence that he actually used this deadlier curse. To do so at Hogwarts would certainly have resulted in expulsion. He could well have used it in his DE days, however.) As for whom or what he practiced on at Hogwarts, how about a turnip from the kitchen? After all, you can't get blood from a turnip. Carol, who couldn't resist that last line From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 01:36:06 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:36:06 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141773 > Neri: > > > Another interesting inconsistency I found is that in the Frank > > > Brice case and in the spider case there's a "rushing sound" > > > after the green light, which in the spider case is further > > > described "as though a vast, invisible something was soaring > through the air". > > > This quite distinct sound is *not* described in Cedric's case, > > > nor in the fox case, > > > > Valky: > > The rushing sound, I have to admit is genuinely inconsistent in > > the text. > > Geoff: > 'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say, > "Kill the spare." > A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to > the night "Avada Kedavra!" > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eylids and he heard > something heavy fall to the ground beside him...' > > (GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 UK edition) > > Referring to your comment above,I realise it seems to be in the > wrong order but how do you interpret the swishing noise? > Valky: There seems to be only one relative point in the case of Harry hearing the rushing sound, which is his proximity to the caster. If we assume narrator views the AK at a distance from the caster then the rushing sound needs only be described once. Out of curiosity, does Harry recall the rushing sound in Godrics Hollow? Because, by this logic, if he does then the wand that casts it would need to be very close to him. The swishing in the case of Cedric, I'd then say, is the sound of Pettigrew raising the wand in congruence with the order of the description. Cerridwen: I mean, as long as I've got the book out, right? The spider, pg. 216 US: There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air - instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead. Several of the students stifled cries; Ron had thrown himself backward and almost toppled off his seat as the spider skidded toward him. Valky: The flash of green light is harder to explain, although we have two descriptions of it, they seem to have only in common Harry's proximity to the victim. I'd like to say that the blinding green light is exclusively the way an Avada Kedavra looks when it's coming towards you. But unless Harry is in miniature standing beside the spider on the bench, it doesn't hold well. OTOH Barty Jr would *like* to have cast the AK on Harry so it's still slightly possible that he cast it deliberately at an angle that leant toward Harry. For that to hold I kind of need to know what the other classmates were saying (not Ron, the spider skids toward him so if he's standing beside Harry then we having backing for the assumption) *after* they saw Barty peform the AK in the spider, but I am *still* missing my copy of GOF (humpf) so I can't check. Cerridwen, could I ask you to check and see if the others recall the blinding flash too? So I guess to answer your original question Geoff, I do see some consistency in the varying descriptions of AK, but it's mostly found by picking nits and differentiating minutiae, which I know doesn't appeal to you greatly. The one thing that is not the least bit inconsistent, however, is the effect of the successful Avada Kedavra on the victim. Instant Death, no sideshow. Dumbledore's death is the *only* exclusion in that case. Valky From lipa at pobox.com Tue Oct 18 01:36:31 2005 From: lipa at pobox.com (Lipa) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:36:31 +0200 Subject: Peter's Redemption (was: Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...) References: <00e601c5d279$33e727f0$6c60400c@Spot> Message-ID: <011d01c5d384$5ff59140$eb04810a@eowyn> No: HPFGUIDX 141774 "Magpie": > I do think he'll have to do something to help Harry; the > wizard's debt seems like it's a pretty big anvil. But > redemption seems very difficult for this character. Lipa now: Wormtail has so far been so closely developed along the lines of Tolkien's Wormtongue (including the nickname, incuding Harry's/Frodo's mercy) that it seems only fitting that he should kill Voldemort in the end, out of desperation (unable to repent, but able to hate) and thus spare Harry the need to "split his soul". Lipa (unable to cope with the volume of the list and likely to repeat what was already said by other people) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 01:52:03 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:52:03 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141775 Valky: >Cerridwen, could I > ask you to check and see if the others recall the blinding flash too? Ceridwen: I'll check. Short detour, page 216 GoF US: So that was how his parents had died... exactly like that spider. Had they been unblemished and unmarked too? Had they simply seen the flash of green light and heard the rush of speeding death, before life was wiped from their bodies? The students spend the rest of the class copying down notes about the Unforgivables. Once they're dismissed - Page 218: Most people were discussing the curses in awed voices - "Did you see it twitch?" "-- and when he killed it - just like that!" That's all it says about the class reaction afterwards. The trio go on to see to Neville, who is still wide-eyed at the example of the Crucio which occurred right before the AK. Then, 'Moody' takes him off to his office to loan him some books, and offers him tea. Neville doesn't seem to want to go... And I don't remember why, or what supposedly happened up there, or anything. And it's getting late so I'm not going to browse tonight. But, that's puzzling me now. Ceridwen. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 02:28:57 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:28:57 -0000 Subject: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141776 > >>Nora: > Where I hesitate is in equating 'different reactions' > with 'directed change', which is what I would have to include in my > definition of 'dynamic'. > > >>Hickengruendler (post #141768): > I snipped a part of Alla's post, in which she stated, that most > adult characters, including Snape are non-dynamic. I agree with this > completely. I don't even think I would call Dumbledore or Sirius > dynamic. Maybe some aspects of their personalities, but not all. > > >>Hickengruendler (post #141769): > > But is this the same as dynamic? Sure, McGonagall behaves > differently according who is around her, but don't we all? She > doesn't develop over the course of the books. > Betsy Hp: Hmmm. I seem to be operating under a completely different definition of dynamic than Nora and Hickengruendler (and Alla and Lupinlore, I'm guessing). You all seem to expect some sort of huge change within the character in order to define that character as dynamic. In which case, Hickengruendler is right. Few of the Potterverse characters are dynamic. Including Harry, Ron and Hermione. Even Neville is still quiet and unassuming with no close friends. What worries me a bit is that some rather well known literary characters could be seen as something less than dynamic under that definition. Tom Sawyer is pretty much the same boy at the end of his story. Elizabeth Bennett (other than finally seeing Mr. Darcy in his true light) is pretty much the same woman at the end of Pride and Prejudice (her sister changes even less). So I might be crazy (and I'm serious, I might be, it's been a while since my last literature course ) but I think a dynamic character isn't necessarily one who makes gigantic changes. Small ones work. Actually, small ones are generally better, because character consistency is important too. For a literary character to be dynamic raises them to a certain level of realism. So when you say, Hickengruendler, "Sure, McGonagall behaves differently according who is around her, but don't we all?" the very fact you're comparing her to actual living people means that she is acting dynamically. Contrast her to Madam Rosmerta who reacts exactly the same way to everyone. She's the brassy, barkeep. It's all she needs to be, so JKR doesn't need to develop her any further. McGonagall didn't suddenly change when she comforted and protected Trelawny in OotP. If Umbridge had come to Hogwarts in PS/SS, McGonagall would have reacted the same way. She *was* behaving dynamically, but she wasn't having a complete or even partial change of character. > >>Nora: > But have we seen any cases of his [Snape's] reactions or > engagements with the same people undergoing evolution, development, > re-evaluation? > Betsy Hp: I'd say there's a change between the way Snape reacted to Sirius in PoA and then in OotP. He was all snarling rage in PoA. In OotP he was very much in control, pushing Sirius further and further over the edge. So I think he did re-evaluate his reaction to Sirius from one book to another. > >>Nora: > Have we actually *seen* Snape change on anything, in the same sort > of way that a development section leads from one thematic area into > another before our eyes and ears? We have it attested in the past, > but we've also had the suspicion raised that it never really > happened, either. Betsy Hp: Ah, but have we seen *any* character make a thematic change? The only one I can possibly think of is Draco Malfoy, and even that change has yet to be verified. So are we expecting Snape to be *more* developed than any other character within the Potterverse? That seems unrealistic to me. Betsy Hp From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 18 02:32:27 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:32:27 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141777 > Carol responds: >snip< I traced the thread > back as far as my own post number 137162 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137162 > > although the idea may go farther back still for all I know. >snip< > As far as I can see, this point is still valid. Cedric certainly > doesn't look like he's asleep. He looks dead, as do the Riddles. DD, > in contrast, appears composed. And even if you don't acknowledge that > looking like he's asleep means looking peaceful (as in the portrait), > there's no way to get around the closed eyes, which appear in no other > known AK victim, and again indicate that he had time to compose his > mind and reconcile himself to death as he fell. And that would also > mean time to register shock at Snape's behavior, if that was what he felt. Potioncat: Ah, yes, HPfGU contamination. Much more insidious than movie contamination. Even if "peaceful" did start with Carol, it took on a life of its own. But I agree with Carol. What ever happened, DD died in a state of peace. He's apparantly satisfied that whatever he asked of Snape will be done or was done. It is not the expression of a betrayed man who is surprised at the AK; or of a regretful man who is disappointed he won't be helping Harry with horcruxes; or of a frightened man who is worried about the safety of his students. It is significant that he looks as if he is sleeping, peacefully, at rest. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 18 02:30:59 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:30:59 EDT Subject: Twist JKR?/ Some spoilers for Les Miserables Message-ID: <30.7d3eac55.3085b863@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141778 > Elyse: Yep, and let the "Chosen One" have the pleasure of choosing > which way he wanted to die: at the hands of Regenerated!Voldemort or > under Bellatrix's motherly gaze. > Come on, be fair. It was either certain death and victory for > Voldemort or being abused, but staying alive. And I dont see how it > was possible for Dumbledore to foresee exactly how bad their > treatment of Harry was. Alla: I don't really want to go into discussing Dumbledore's speech in OOP again, but nowhere in that speech he says that he ahd no other options, as far as I can remember. He said you would be the safest, where your mother blood dwells, he said that their DE out on the loose, but as I said earlier, it was not hundred percent clear to me. But yeah, I think that this is what JKR intended - to be left with Dursleys or die, I just think that she did not convey it clear enough AND without Dumbledore singing a different tune in HBP, he comes out ( to me only of course) in a bad light after OOP for at least not interfering and checking up on Harry. Julie, jumping in: Maybe it's just the general impression given throughout the books but I thought from the start Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys because of the protection of his mother's blood, and that *no one* (especially Voldemort) can touch him there. It may not have been a choice between life and certain death, but it does seems to have been a choice between certain protection and uncertain protection. Harry stays alive--guaranteed--at the Dursley's until he's grown; anywhere else his life must constantly be guarded and the slightest misstep may forfeit it. Dumbledore's choice makes sense to me. It was the best choice he could make under the circumstances. It doesn't even matter whether it's actually Harry's life that's important or the salvation of the WW (though I think Dumbledore was after both). If Harry dies, there is no future for him, good or bad, nor for the WW. > > > > Alla: > > I would NOT let the former member of terrorist organization > anywhere > > NEAR my students, because I don't know , I would be worried that > > this man may had many dangerous psychological issues left over his > > glory days and he may have take it out on my students. > > > Elyse: Well, whats the point of being redeemed if no one is willing > to give you a job and ostracize you because you *may* have > psychological issues left over? By your way of thinking, we should > give life sentences to all convicts, shouldnt we, because they *may* > have psychological issues left over from their time in jail? > I read this fabulous Victor Hugo story years ago. I think it was from > Les Miserables but I'm not sure. Alla: You missed my point completely, I am sorry for being unclear. The reason I wrote the tirade about what I would not have done if I were Dumbledore was to show that in many instances Dumbledore is BETTER person than I am, but also in some instances his trust in people has to be balanced with other issues, such as safety of the other people he is responsible for. I am NOT saying that he should not have given Snape a second chance ( although when I am not in charitable mood, I happen to believe that Snape failed that chance), I think it is a GOOD thing on Dumbledore part, BUT I also think that it was irresponsible of Dumbledore not to think about his students before he did so, IMO. I am saying that Dumbledore with his tremendous connections everywhere could have find a job for Snape for example somewhere in the WW analogy of potion research institute, or something like that, but to keep him away from children. Oh, and before I get the objection that this is needed for the sake of the story, because I used to get them, let me disclaim again - I KNOW this and without Snape being in Hogwarts we would have no story, BUT the characters do not know that they are in the story ( ugh, I am always having trouble explaining it correctly), so from the point of view of Dumbledore ,who does not know that he is in the story, accepting Snape to be a teacher makes little sense to me. Trust him? Yes. Help him to find a way to make a living? Absolutely. But NOT endager the students, because Dumbledore decided to give hima second chance. Julie: I see your point about Snape not teaching children. His methods leave a lot to be desired, and he'd probably be better off elsewhere (and happier, as certainly would most of his students!). But I do disagree with the level of misjudgment on DD's part. Snape has never *endangered* any student. Bruised them a bit with his verbal slings, maybe. But he's left no permanent damage, not even to Neville. I also must point out that in all the years Snape has taught we only know of two students he has been truly abusive with verbally. Of course there may have been more, and if some were as initially incompetent as Neville there probably were. (Does anyone but me ever wonder why there wasn't an *out and out* war between Snape and the Weasley twins during their years in Potions class? I think it's strange that has never been mentioned, as I can't think of anyone else beside Harry who'd rub Snape as badly as those two! Yet it seems the twins might actually have respected Snape enough to more or less behave in his class.) I do think Dumbledore would never let a teacher if he knew they would truly endanger his students (surely Umbridge would never have gotten in if Dumbledore had a choice). And Snape, for all his unpleasantlness, isn't one of those teachers. Alla: To be fair, I think Dumbledore suffers from having to wear too many hats, way too many - He has different responsibilities as Headmaster, as Leader of OOP and as spiritual leader of the light ( that mostly speculative title, but I think it is there - sort of lead by example) and those responsibilities sometimes require to take very opposing actions, IMO. Julie: I agree. Particularly when it comes to Harry, it must be very hard to balance Harry's best interest with that of the WW. That's been the reason behind many of his mistakes, like not telling Harry what was going on in OotP. Alla: Oh, and I LOVE "Les Miserables". Talk about great story of the redemption. The difference why the story of Jean Valjan worked so well for me as redemption story is because we SEE Valjan being genuinely remorseful for his sins ( which IMO are so small and insignificant in comparison to Snape's - he stole because he was, but that is not the point) AND we see him being nice to all people and keep sacrificing his own happiness for Kosette and Marius ( spelling?). I believed Valjan remorse because I read about it on the pages over and over again, I cried when he died. Going back to Snape, I think that his remorse is only hinted to in very brief passing, everything else is just us filling out the blanks. Julie: This is true, however there are two pivotal reasons for that. One is that the books are almost 100% Harry's POV, and we can't really learn much about a character like Snape (one who is so ambiguous) when we can't get inside his mind. And Two, why would JKR reveal the depth of his remorse at this point? Snape is easily the biggest mystery of the series, so JKR has to keep us from being able to truly read him or understand his motives, or that central mystery is gone. Snape's deep remorse, or lack thereof, is something that can't come until the end. That's when we'll find out if whether it's appropriate to cry over his death ;-) > Elyse: To make a short story slightly longer, yes trust is an > essential part of his character. That is exactly why JKR should not > make Snape evil. Because then she would imply that the essential > feature of the epitome of good is such a tragic flaw. Alla: Since I think that Dumbledore having flaws is pretty much established in the books already, I would be perfectly fine with such implication and yes, just because someone did something bad ( killed Dumbledore, IMO) does not mean that he cannot take a different path in the future. Julie: Dumbledore's flaws have been established, and they make him human. But I do think if Snape is one, it does diminish Dumbledore's character. All those hundreds of "I trust Severus Snape"s throughout the books would be evidence of a man who is ridiculously lacking in perception about people. Better his trust in Snape is proven to be well-founded and based on solid evidence and knowledge (that mystery "reason" we probably haven't learned yet for Snape's return to the Good side), than he be proven to have had his head in the sand all along. Better for a character one can admire anyway. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 02:41:00 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:41:00 -0000 Subject: Dynamic characters vs. round characters (Is Snape dynamic?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141779 Just to clear up a bit of confusion on the Snape-as-dynamic-character debate, "dynamic" is a technical term with a specific meaning in the context of literary analysis. It's possible for a character to be "round" (complex, with more than one or two readily identifiable traits) without being "dynamic" (changing or developing within the context of the literary work). I would argue for Snape's complexity (after all, we wouldn't be debating his intentions and culpability if he were a "flat" character as one-dimensional as Lupinlore finds him), but not necessarily for his dynamism/development within the time frame of the six books we've read so far. If we're looking for genuinely flat characters, I'd nominate Crabbe/n/Goyle or Dudley or Professor Binns or Peeves. Most of these characters are also static (nondynamic or nondeveloping), though it could be argued that Dudley develops slightly as his bullying techniques become more systematic. Lockhart, a flat character, is dynamic in the sense that he loses his memory, but really he just changes from one flat character to another. And Percy, whose character traits are essentially limited to pomposity and ambition, nevertheless manages to develop in relation to the story. He's flat but dynamic. Harry, of course, is both round (complex) and dynamic, as are Ron and Hermione. So is Dumbledore, who acts differently in OoP than in earlier books, changing in his attitude toward and treatment of Harry as Harry himself and his circumstances change. Sirius Black is also a dynamic character, and not solely because the reader's perception of him changes from PoA through the end of OoP. Most of the other adults--McGonagall, Flitwick, the Weasleys, Filch, Trelawney, Hagrid--are essentially static. They don't develop or change in significant ways over the course of the books. Snape? Certainly he changed from the teenager of the worst memory scene to the adult Snape. If his repentance was real (and I believe it was), he changed from a loyal Death Eater to DD's man. And the Snape of Book 7 will be different from the Snape of previous books because his relationship to Harry has changed (though his feelings probably have not). But whether the Snape of SS/PS has changed fundamentally from the Snape of Book 7 remains to be seen, and the turning point, if any, has yet to be revealed and may need to be determined by the individual reader. Anyone who doesn't think that Snape is complex should perhaps reread the Occlumency chapters in OoP and note that most of the time, he *isn't* nasty to Harry. His words and actions are not predictable, as Harry's expectations demonstrate repeatedly. Snape does not do what Harry expects him to do. His revelation to Fudge of his blackening Dark Mark in GoF is also completely unexpected. And the Unbreakable Vow and the tower scene in HBP show clearly that he is a complex (round) rather than a flat character, or all of us would immediately understand his motivations and the significance of his actions. Besides, he has more than one character trait. Brilliant. Witty. Mean. Conflicted. Repressed--unless he lets go. Devoted to duty. Opposed to arrogance and rule-breaking by students. Intolerant of weakness and incompetence. Courageous. Manipulative. Above all, inscrutable. He is by all accounts the most ambiguous and mysterious character in the books, the only one besides Dumbledore who has kept secrets from Harry, and consequently from us, throughout the entire series. His inner turmoil, Slytherin self-interest and hatred of Harry's father vs. his loyalty and sense of duty make him probably the most complex character in the books aside from Harry himself and possibly Dumbledore. But dynamic, in the sense of the adult Snape shifting his loyalties and motivating principles throughout the series, or at one or more key points in the series? (I don't think anyone would argue that his *personality* has changed, at least not in the time Harry has known him.) I would argue that it's primarily our *perceptions* of him that are dynamic, not Snape himself, whether he's ESE!, OFH! or DDM!. I happen to believe that he's been devoted to the same cause (bringing down Voldemort) and maintained the same loyalties (to Dumbledore and his cause), both of which motivate him, against his own will and nature, to protect Harry and, when necessary, put aside his personal antipathy for the greater good. But it's not necessary to hold this view to see him as round but not dynamic, complex but essentially unchanging. Harry's perception of Snape, which is shifting and developing more than he himself is aware of, and will, IMO, shift dramatically in the other direction in Book 7, is another matter altogether. Here's a simple outline of the concepts (flat vs. round, static vs. dynamic) for anyone who's not familiar with the distinction: http://www.cas.usf.edu/lis/lis6585/class/litelem.html Carol, realizing that the application of these labels is somewhat subjective but pretty sure that at least Crabbe and Goyle are labeled correctly ;-) From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 02:47:54 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:47:54 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but have we seen *any* character make a thematic change? The > only one I can possibly think of is Draco Malfoy, and even that > change has yet to be verified. So are we expecting Snape to be > *more* developed than any other character within the Potterverse? > That seems unrealistic to me. We've seen Ron struggle with his fears, and work on overcoming them. He gets over his fears about werewolves; one is particularly amused by the comments in FBAWTFT about how 'all werewolves aren't bad'. Hermione has developed thematically with her relationship to the rules and necessity. Neville has come into his own, definitely changing in how he reacts to other people and the various challenges. Harry has certainly come to many realizations about how the world works, including this vaunted embrasse of his 'slytherin' side in HBP. Of course, everyone has areas where they are not dynamic as well. Not huge changes, perhaps, and JKR's ideas about fundamental character are certainly at work. I don't recall ever having advocated *massive* changes, just a line of development of changes in the character. One could argue that Neville has always had his potential, and just failed to actualize it. But he *has* changed in these meaningful ways in how he faces daily life, and we get to see this because he enteracts with the same people in different ways. Ron and Hermione actually getting down into their romance makes them dynamic in their relationship to each other. I don't see Snape being depicted as making these sorts of gradual changes and adjustments--but then again, I remember the image of Harry separating him and Sirius in OotP, so I wouldn't put him on an elevated plane of control there, either. Particularly his relationship to Harry, which is the most important one (as everyone in the books exists in a literary relationship to Harry), is rather one-note. If you think he's being sincere about his general attitudes. Well, at least after next book the "just you wait" argument no longer obtains... -Nora sez: a character who shifts is more complex than one who does not, generally From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 03:33:17 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:33:17 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR?/ Some spoilers for Les Miserables In-Reply-To: <30.7d3eac55.3085b863@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141781 > Alla: > Oh, and I LOVE "Les Miserables". Talk about great story of the > redemption. The difference why the story of Jean Valjan worked so > well for me as redemption story is because we SEE Valjan being > genuinely remorseful for his sins ( which IMO are so small and > insignificant in comparison to Snape's we see him being nice > to all people and keep sacrificing his own happiness for Kosette > and Marius (spelling?). I believed Valjan remorse because I read > about it on the pages over and over again, I cried when he died. > > Going back to Snape, I think that his remorse is only hinted to in > very brief passing, everything else is just us filling out the > blanks. > Julie: > Snape's deep remorse, or lack > thereof, is something that can't come until the end. That's when > we'll find out if whether it's appropriate to cry over his death ;-) Valky: I know Alla des love to speculate on the eventual revelation of Snape. And I admit enjoying many of the intense bangy karmic retributions that Alla flags for his final scenes. I, too, think a sharp stinging slap that resonates ache right to the heart is necessary for the completion of Snape character arc. But like Julie, I think regardles of where it lays and what it pulls together, it cannot be revealed til the end. Snape IMO is needfully used in his ambiguous shadow behind Harry, role. Any categorical revealing of his nature, before time, would just necessitate inventing someone else to hang ominously in the wings while the 'other' bad guy slips between our grasping fingers. IOW it just wouldn't be the same without him would it. And I know you both agree with that What I really intended to address was Alla's lovely comparison with Les Miserables, which I also loved and cried over. It makes me wonder if we already have a nice big hint of Snape having been showing his remorse throughout the series, on a daily basis (Jean Val Jean style) and that all it would take is for a revelation to make us all pour like waterfalls at the end. Naturally I have a suggestion , lets consider what seems to be obvious now in the matter of Snapes remorse, Lily. If there is at all any consideration to be had there, it would be placing nice, kind Lily, with unpopular, lonely Snape in NEWT potions. There is loads to base this on, Sluggy seems to have taught them both and his testimony is a given that they both made it to NEWTs in the subject. So what does that mean? Well it hints *anvil* size that if Lily and Snape ever had any rapport at all. It existed primarily and possibly even exclusively *in that dungeon*. You know the one The one Snape taught in for 15 years! It's open and shut then IMHO. If his crime against the sweet Lily Evans was Snapes great tale of remorse then it would be somewhat redemptive to spend fifteen years in the dungeon where he knew her, a daily reminder of the sweet girl who never did him any harm, while he took such a hand in destroying her whole life. Just a thought. Valky From natti_shafer at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 03:38:16 2005 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:38:16 -0000 Subject: Twist JKR?/ Some spoilers for Les Miserables In-Reply-To: <30.7d3eac55.3085b863@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141782 Julie: I see your point about Snape not teaching children. His methods leave a lot to be desired, and he'd probably be better off elsewhere (and happier, as certainly would most of his students!). But I do disagree with the level of misjudgment on DD's part. Snape has never *endangered* any student. Bruised them a bit with his verbal slings, maybe. But he's left no permanent damage, not even to Neville. I also must point out that in all the years Snape has taught we only know of two students he has been truly abusive with verbally. Of course there may have been more, and if some were as initially incompetent as Neville there probably were. (Does anyone but me ever wonder why there wasn't an *out and out* war between Snape and the Weasley twins during their years in Potions class? I think it's strange that has never been mentioned, as I can't think of anyone else beside Harry who'd rub Snape as badly as those two! Yet it seems the twins might actually have respected Snape enough to more or less behave in his class.) Nathaniel here: I'm not sure I'd call it respect per se. Right before the Weasley twins "pull a Weasley" they tell Hermione that they no longer care about being expelled, but that previous to that moment they did care. I'm paraphrasing here, but they say that they have always known where to draw the line so as to avoid expullsion. Knowing how Snape has a penchant for deducting points, giving detentions, and recommending expulsions the Weasley twins may have tested the boundaries, but I'd be willing to bet that they tried not to cross Snape too often. I see them as more likely to take their revenge by making snide remarks about him when he's out of earshot or otherwise undercutting his authority. So I suppose I don't really disagree with you. It is just my opinion that they do not "respect" Snape or really even fear him, but rather fall just short of crossing that proverbial line that would really get them into trouble. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 04:56:07 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 04:56:07 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141783 > > Carol responds: > >snip< > I traced the thread > > back as far as my own post number 137162 > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137162 > > > > although the idea may go farther back still for all I know. > > >snip< > Potioncat: > Ah, yes, HPfGU contamination. Much more insidious than movie > contamination. Even if "peaceful" did start with Carol, it took on a > life of its own. > Neri: All I'll say is - you didn't not go back nearly far enough . This one goes considerably deeper, and Carol *isn't* the earlier source that I came across. And as far as I could see it didn't started from the portrait. > Potioncat: > But I agree with Carol. What ever happened, DD died in a state of > peace. He's apparantly satisfied that whatever he asked of Snape will > be done or was done. It is not the expression of a betrayed man who > is surprised at the AK; or of a regretful man who is disappointed he > won't be helping Harry with horcruxes; or of a frightened man who is > worried about the safety of his students. It is significant that he > looks as if he is sleeping, peacefully, at rest. > Neri: I just hope all the readers realize that the above isn't canon, but one possible interpretation of it. The canon is: ************************************************ HBP, US ed, Ch. 28, ,pp. 608-609: Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again could he help... ************************************************ Neri From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 18 07:26:17 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:26:17 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141784 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: Potioncat: > > But I agree with Carol. What ever happened, DD died in a state of > > peace. He's apparantly satisfied that whatever he asked of Snape > > will be done or was done. It is not the expression of a betrayed > > man who is surprised at the AK; or of a regretful man who is > > disappointed he won't be helping Harry with horcruxes; or of a > > frightened man who is worried about the safety of his students. > > It is significant that he looks as if he is sleeping, peacefully, > > at rest. > Neri: > I just hope all the readers realize that the above isn't canon, but > one possible interpretation of it. The canon is: > > ************************************************ > HBP, US ed, Ch. 28, ,pp. 608-609: > Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms > and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened > the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of > blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the > wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible > truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again > could he help... > ************************************************ Geoff: True. But, as has been pointed out more than once, there are differences to previous descriptions of AK victims.... 'The police had never read an odder report. A team of doctors had examined the bodies and had concluded that none of the Riddles had been poisoned, stabbed, shot, strangled, suffocated or (as far as they could tell) harmed at all. In fact, the report continued, in a tone of unmistakeable bewilderment, the Riddles all appeared to be in perfect health - apart from the fact they were all dead. The doctors did note (as though determined to find something wrong with the bodies) that each of the Riddles had a look of terror upon his or her face - but as the frustrated police said, whoever heard of three people being frightened to death?' (GOF "The Riddle House" p.9 UK edition) 'Cedric was lying spread-eagled on the ground beside him. He was dead. For a second that contained an eternity, Hary stared into Cedric's face, at his open grey eyes, blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house, at his half-open mouth, which looked slightly surprised.' (GPF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p. 553-54 UK edition) Unlike Dumbledore, none of these people could be described as if they "might have been sleeping". The Riddles are terrified, Cedric is uncomprehending, Dumbledore appears asleep. Can we draw any conclusions about what caused Dumbledore's death? An AK or not an AK? That is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing be a DDM!Snaper. (with apologies to the Bard!!) Referring back to Wormtail's spell, valky wrote: "The swishing in the case of Cedric, I'd then say, is the sound of Pettigrew raising the wand in congruence with the order of the description." Where else have we had a sound effect of someone rasing a wand? It seems to run counter to other descriptions. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 08:31:51 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:31:51 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141785 Geoff wrote: > Unlike Dumbledore, none of these people could be described as if > they "might have been sleeping". The Riddles are terrified, Cedric > is uncomprehending, Dumbledore appears asleep. Can we draw any > conclusions about what caused Dumbledore's death? Valky responds: That is the one question I am certain I can answer, and the answer is No. I don't think we have the knowledge required to do so. Which IMO is very clever of Jo as it gives her *miles* of space to wiggle Snapes neck out of the noose if thats the plan, while still being /generally/ believable if he's to stay there. > Geoff: > An AK or not an AK? That is the question. Whether tis nobler in the > mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to > take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing be a > DDM!Snaper. > (with apologies to the Bard!!) Valky: and applause. Great show, Geoff mind if I join ? ;D Did Snape Kill! perchance to imagine - ay, there's the rub, For in that moment of death, What results *should* come, When Dumbledore has shuffled off this mortal coil. and further apologies. :S > > Geoff: > 'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say, > "Kill the spare." > A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to > the night "Avada Kedavra!" > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eylids and he heard > something heavy fall to the ground beside him...' > > (GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 UK edition) < ...and then downthread.> > Geoff wrote: > Referring back to Wormtail's spell, Valky wrote: > > "The swishing in the case of Cedric, I'd then say, is the sound of > Pettigrew raising the wand in congruence with the order of the > description." > > Where else have we had a sound effect of someone rasing a wand? It > seems to run counter to other descriptions. > Valky: Got me there Geoff. All I can think of is the 'Swish and Flick'. But rereading the quote a second time I have realised it can be pared down to construe as the noise of 'rushing death' by the fact that the sentence reads, A swishing noise *and* the voice saying Avada Kedavra. If JKR wanted she could tell us it was meant to imply that the two things were simultaneous. But I am tangling myself in knots trying to maintain that consistency with the other AK's. I take that as having pared down too far. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 23:07:31 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:07:31 -0000 Subject: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141786 Carol, I remain far from convinced of your counter argument. I have, however had useful discussions regarding my article here with you and elsewhere and intend some revision. As stated before time will tell and only Book 7 will have the answer. Possibly the most interesting thing to note is that Bagman is apparently not in the upcoming fourth movie at all, as I believe I have said before. You are right about Sturgis, but straw colour is quite different from blond. Perhaps we shoulkd also look at Goyle as a suspect. These points and others will be addressed in my revision. Further correspondence would be welcome. > Valky: > I would argue that the rattling chains support Goddlefrood's > theoretical DE Bagman, much rather than counter it. Goddlefrood replies: Thank you for your input and positive response. Certain matters in my article have been challenged and there would be some revision, mostly addition actually. The main point Carol relied on was that neither Barty Jnr. nor Voldemort mentioned Bagman as being involved in the plot in GOF. Veritaserum has been discussed at some length. This point is valid, however if the relevant passages are reread closely, as I have done this previous weekend, then it is clear that Barty Jnr. only answers direct questions and because his interrgators probably have no inkling that Bagman was involved there are no questions concerning him. Barty Jnr. does not offer extra information. This is only a negative proof. I also believe it is probable that if Bagman was involved in the plot then only Barty Jnr. would know and there would appear to have been no opportunity for Voldemort to become aware of his involvement. Of course the BBDE may also be Goyle, who was not present at the MOM and is described in the graveyard scene as one of the two largest Death Eaters. There is no descriptive material on Goyle other than his size and Bagman remains my favourite for the role. I only wonder why he is not in the fourth movie. But then, like I have stated before, he may only be a periferal (query spelling) character and not that important to the continuing saga. Next up will be my DADA theory, which I will follow with my Bagman revision. Goddlefrood From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 18 10:27:53 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:27:53 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?That_swishing_sound_was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141787 Geoff: > > Where else have we had a sound effect of someone rasing a wand? It > > seems to run counter to other descriptions. > > > > Valky: > Got me there Geoff. All I can think of is the 'Swish and Flick'. > But rereading the quote a second time I have realised it can be pared > down to construe as the noise of 'rushing death' by the fact that the > sentence reads, A swishing noise *and* the voice saying Avada Kedavra. > If JKR wanted she could tell us it was meant to imply that the two > things were simultaneous. But I am tangling myself in knots trying to > maintain that consistency with the other AK's. I take that as having > pared down too far. > Pippin: The swishing sound is clearly separated from the effects of the AK -- the flash of light and the sound of Cedric falling. Could it be the approach of the real killer? I've said before, it's quite a feat that clumsy Peter, who doesn't trust his conjured ropes but has to check them, manages to put his bundle aside and draw his wand before Cedric, who already has his wand out, can do an expelliarmus. And so convenient that Harry had his eyes closed. Here's a little canon to back it up -- the arrival of the other Death Eaters at the graveyard. "The air was suddenly full of the swishing of cloaks." -- GoF ch 33 Pippin stubbornly convinced that JKR's confirmation that it was Wormtail using Voldemort's wand means that there are two characters using the alias Wormtail. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 18 11:06:30 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:06:30 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141788 > > Potioncat: > > Ah, yes, HPfGU contamination. Much more insidious than movie > > contamination. Even if "peaceful" did start with Carol, it took on a > > life of its own. > > > > Neri: > All I'll say is - you didn't not go back nearly far enough . This > one goes considerably deeper, and Carol *isn't* the earlier source > that I came across. And as far as I could see it didn't started from > the portrait. > Pippin: Neri is possibly referring to my post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/133034 I quoted the canon, and said that Dumbledore wouldn't have had time to close his eyes or assume a peaceful expression. It's true the canon doesn't literally say that he had a peaceful expression, but that's generally what we mean in English when we say that a corpse looks like it was sleeping. (Open casket viewings are not uncommon in the US or I think in Britain.) I'd be astounded if someone said that about a body and it turned out to have an expression of horror or blank surprise -- or pleading. Pippin From PenapartElf at aol.com Tue Oct 18 11:16:04 2005 From: PenapartElf at aol.com (PenapartElf at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:16:04 EDT Subject: ADMIN: HBP CHAPDISC - call for chapter discussion leaders Message-ID: <1a6.41c37dd2.30863374@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141789 Greetings and Salutations! We interrupt the regularly scheduled meandering of threads for this introduction of the much anticipated "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" Chapter Discussions! Like the OotP chapter discussions, one chapter is scheduled every other week, consisting of a summary and some questions to kick-start the discussion. In order to participate more meaningfully in this chapter-by-chapter dissection of HBP, please do revisit the pertinent chapters of canon each in its turn. KathyK will post the summary/questions for Chapter One, "The Other Minister" shortly so please look for it! We are at this time seeking more leaders for the chapter discussions. Go to http://tinyurl.com/8gsqg (aka http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Structured_Discussions/Chapt er_Discussions_Instructions ) to see if this would be your cup of tea. To indicate your interest, please email HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) and indicate your preference for a particular chapter or a particular time frame. If you had contacted us about volunteering but hadn't received an email from me recently (sorry!), please email again. Because knowing who we can turn to in cases of last-minute need is very helpful, we are also taking names of volunteers who are willing to be on stand by. You can find the schedule for the HBP chapter discussions (including whether a chapter is still unassigned) in database form, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database under "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions." Tip: you can view the entire schedule by clicking "Printable Report." If you are interested in reading over the past chapter discussions for OotP, you can find that schedule at http://tinyurl.com/77ult (aka http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/f iles/Structured_Discussions/OotP_Chapter_Discussions ) which is a hyperlinked version of the database we had used. Cheers! :) Penapart Elf for the HPfGU List Admin Team Reminder: Please do not post questions arising from this ADMIN onlist. Email the List Elves offlist at HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) instead. Thank you. From phil at pcsgames.net Tue Oct 18 11:35:02 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:35:02 -0400 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_That_swishing_sound_was_Re:_Dumble?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?dore's_=22=22peaceful_expression=22=3F?= References: Message-ID: <001201c5d3d8$057fdeb0$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 141790 Geoff: > > > Where else have we had a sound effect of someone raising a wand? It > > > seems to run counter to other descriptions. Now Phil: >From PS: Hagrid seized his umbrella and whirled it over his head, " He brought the umbrella swishing down through the air to point at Dudley-- Harry took the wand. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wand above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework, Phil noting that that's the only other real wand swish in all the books. From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 18 10:25:25 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:25:25 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? /What does Dumbledore wanted on the Tower? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > But there's more going on at Privet Drive than meets the eye. > For one thing, we're told in HBP that Harry has been refusing > meals, which means that someone (Petunia?) is trying to see > that he eats them. > > Perhaps some element of her better nature is trying to assert > itself? If Dumbledore had come in with some heavy-handed "take > better care of Harry or I'll turn you into a toad" would that > part of her ever have surfaced? Or would it have strengthened > the part of her that says all wizards are the enemy? Hmmm. Or perhaps the fact that she was threatened with dreadful consequences by the Order has something to do with it? Amazing how well those threats work. They probably would have worked earlier, too. Which is yet another reason I think JKR is backing off the whole issue. Still, Petunia does probably have some information to reveal. But I wouldn't hold my breath for a change of character. JKR herself has, after all, said "it's probably too late for Vernon and Petunia." Lupinlore From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 18 14:14:13 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:14:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's Letter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141792 Looking over Book 1 the other night, I saw a sentence I'd never thought much about before (!), a comment by Hagrid in "Keeper of the Keys": "You never told him? Never told him what was in the letter Dumbledore left fer him? I was there! I saw Dumbledore leave it, Dursley! An' you've kept it from him all these years?" (p. 50 Scholastic) Dumbledore mentioned in chapter 1 the letter was for Petunia & Vernon, to explain what happened and pass the information on to Harry. Maybe there was infomation specifically for Harry as well? See, this has my brain churning. Is it possible, since Harry never attempted to contact anyone in the magical world, Dumbledore wondered if Harry wanted no part of it? I believe that safety was the primary reason for placing Harry at the Dursleys, but after seeing the damage done by young Riddle when allowed to practice unchecked magic, Dumbledore perhaps also saw the value of placing Harry with a family he knew would not tolerate magic. Dumbledore would want Harry to make the choice to be part of the magical world. Perhaps he interpreted Harry's silence not as the Dursleys witholding information, but Harry making a choice to be a Muggle. Mrs. Figg, with her infreqeunt contact, wouldn't know Harry was simply ignorant about the magical world rather than choosing the Dursleys way-of-life. The only thing left to know is what was in that letter, and if important, the instructions DD gave Hagrid when visiting Harry the first time. I'm just hoping against hope JKR isn't done with the letter, and Petunia will show her better side by pulling out the saved letter during Harry's final stay at Privet Dr. Jen, sniffing at the thought we only have one more chance to see Harry's life again, even those awful Muggles at Privet Dr. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 14:18:25 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:18:25 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141793 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Potioncat: > > > Ah, yes, HPfGU contamination. Much more insidious than movie > > > contamination. Even if "peaceful" did start with Carol, it took on a > > > life of its own. > > > > > > > Neri: > > All I'll say is - you didn't not go back nearly far enough . This > > one goes considerably deeper, and Carol *isn't* the earlier source > > that I came across. And as far as I could see it didn't started from > > the portrait. > > > Pippin: > Neri is possibly referring to my post > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/133034 > > I quoted the canon, and said that Dumbledore wouldn't have had time to > close his eyes or assume a peaceful expression. It's true the canon doesn't > literally say that he had a peaceful expression, but that's generally what we mean in > English when we say that a corpse looks like it was sleeping. (Open casket viewings are not > uncommon in the US or I think in Britain.) I'd be astounded if someone said that about a > body and it turned out to have an expression of horror or blank surprise -- or pleading. > Neri: I wasn't accusing anybody. I just thought that the process of a tiny, completely innocent phrase gradually acquiring the status of canon is interesting and even, might I say, educational. This was the usual process that I encountered (throughout many posts by many posters): A) Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the angle of his arms and legs he might have been sleeping. B) Dumbledore had a peaceful expression when he died. C) Dumbledore was not betrayed. He died satisfied that whatever he asked of Snape will be done. A is canon. B is a subtle interpretation of canon. The meaning of A could well be that Dumbledore's expression was neutral, or that it's simply not very important for the story. However, B isn't important by itself, but as a stepping stone to C. Once A is all but forgotten and B is established as the undisputed canon (and by September it was, by all the posters I've seen) C seems almost unavoidable. With the general direction of the process it would have probably acquired a near-canon status next. You need to read A next to C to realize that there's some distance between the original and the interpretation. Again, I don't have any problem with interpretation. I just think that treating interpretation as canon might lead you to some weird places. Neri From ibchawz at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 14:21:09 2005 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:21:09 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141794 > Geoff wrote: > 'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say, "Kill > the spare." > A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the > night "Avada Kedavra!" > A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eylids and he heard > something heavy fall to the ground beside him...' > > (GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 UK edition) > > Referring to your comment above,I realise it seems to be in the wrong > order but how do you interpret the swishing noise? ibchawz responds: For all the other AK's where a noise was indicated, it was a "rushing sound" and it came after the incantation and the "green light". For this one, it was a "swishing noise" that came before the incantation and the "green light". As I see it, there are 2 possibilities. First, the "swishing noise" that comes before the incantation could be Pettigrew drawing his wand to the ready position or starting the wand movements to cast the spell. The wand movements for the Wingardium Leviosa spell are "swish and flick". While we do not have canon that suggests what the exact wand movements are for an AK, it is possible that a "swish" could be required. The second option is that JKR is not being consistent. ibchawz From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 18 14:29:29 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:29:29 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ibchawz" wrote: Geoff: > > Referring to your comment above,I realise it seems to be in the > > wrong order but how do you interpret the swishing noise? ibchawz: > For all the other AK's where a noise was indicated, it was a "rushing > sound" and it came after the incantation and the "green light". For > this one, it was a "swishing noise" that came before the incantation > and the "green light". As I see it, there are 2 possibilities. First, > the "swishing noise" that comes before the incantation could be > Pettigrew drawing his wand to the ready position or starting the wand > movements to cast the spell. The wand movements for the Wingardium > Leviosa spell are "swish and flick". While we do not have canon that > suggests what the exact wand movements are for an AK, it is possible > that a "swish" could be required. The second option is that JKR is not > being consistent. Geoff: The problem to me is that however hard you flick a thin, cylindrical piece of wood, say 9-12" long, you are not going to produce a really noticeable "swish". I can produce a weak sound with a ruler but to get a really full-bodied sound, you have to be waving half a plank around..... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 18 14:37:03 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:37:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's Letter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: Jen: > The only thing left to know is what was in that letter, and if > important, the instructions DD gave Hagrid when visiting Harry the > first time. I'm just hoping against hope JKR isn't done with the > letter, and Petunia will show her better side by pulling out the > saved letter during Harry's final stay at Privet Dr. > > Jen, sniffing at the thought we only have one more chance to see > Harry's life again, even those awful Muggles at Privet Dr. > Geoff: Now, Jen, don't take on so. (With apologies to Professor Dumbledore): You think the boy wizard heroes we have loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Harry is alive in you and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. So, in future years when you lie awake at night thinking back to the times when you vicariously enjoyed life at Hogwarts..... you will find him inside yourself. (Misquoted from POA "Owl Post Again" p.312 UK edition) From zanelupin at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 16:07:59 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:07:59 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141797 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 1, The Other Minister Chapter the first of HBP is one of those few occasions on which we are not seeing things from Harry's point of view. It opens in the Muggle world, where the Prime Minister sits alone in his office late at night, after a very stressful week during which he had been blamed for a freak bridge collapse, a freak hurricane, and two gruesome murders, not to mention Junior Minister Herbert Chorley's strange behavior and the overall gloominess of the nation. Things are not normal and not good. The portrait on his wall requests that the PM receives a visit from Cornelius Fudge. The Prime Minister tries to beg off, but the portrait will not take no for an answer, even from the Prime Minister. The PM consents to meet with Fudge, who immediately arrives. Fudge and the PM compare with one another the week that they both just had. The PM is shocked to discover that the various disasters of the week are, in fact, WW-related, while Fudge is equally surprised that the PM did not catch on to this fact. The PM feels he is being treated like an `ignorant schoolboy,' just as he has felt with each visit from Fudge. We readers are then treated to the history of Fudge's increasingly frequent visits to the PM. The first meeting was an introduction to Fudge and the WW, in which Fudge assured the stunned Muggle it was likely they'd never see each other again. But Fudge did return. On the second visit, Fudge warned of the known Muggle-killer, "Serious" Black's, escape, requested the PM warn the Muggle population, and explained who Lord Voldemort is. Less than a year later Fudge dropped by to tell him of the trouble at the QWC involving Muggles, but not to worry. Fudge informed the Minister, offhandedly, that they imported some dragons and a sphinx. Less than two years after that, Fudge breezed in to share the news of the mass Azkaban prison break and was gone again before the PM could get a word in. Having noticed that Fudge brought even graver news with each visit, the PM considers the wizard in his office the worst thing to happen to him all week. Fudge lays out the hard truth: LV *has* returned, and he and his followers are wreaking havoc, causing the problems the PM has been handling over the past week. The PM is outraged that he's being blamed for events that are not his fault, *and* he can't tell anyone about the truth: that LV blew up the bridge; Death Eaters and giants caused the `hurricane;' no number of policemen could have prevented Amelia Bones and Emmeline Vance's deaths; and the dementors are attacking and breeding, creating misery?and a chilly mist-- everywhere. Fudge then reveals he's been fired- and the new Minister for Magic, Rufus Scrimgeour, our old lion guy, arrives, probably after making another attempt to continue Fudge's efforts to get to Harry through Dumbledore. He makes a big to do about locking the door and closing the curtains (using his magic). They discuss protection for the Prime Minister, revealing that the PM's new favorite employee, Kingsley Shacklebolt, is a wizard assigned to ensure the PM doesn't become a DE puppet. Herbert Chorley has been taken to St. Mungo's to treat his reaction to a poorly performed Imperius Curse. Scrimgeour promises to keep the PM posted on what is going on, but will probably send Fudge since he will be too busy to come personally. As Fudge and Scrimgeour finish their business, the PM expresses his helplessness, shock, and disbelief for a final time. "But for heaven's sake?you're *wizards!* You can do *magic!* Surely you can sort out ?well--*anything!*" To which Fudge replies, "The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, Prime Minister." And both wizards depart. QUESTIONS (in no particular order): **Got a different question? Feel free to ask it or bring up anything I've overlooked** 1. JKR wrote on her website: ******************************************* The Opening Chapter of Book Six I have come close to using a chapter very like this in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about thirteen years in the brewing. **************************************************** http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=6 Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or stylistic reasons to include this scene now? 2. The PM felt like an `ignorant schoolboy.' Is this truly how they were treating him and if so, how does the condescension of the two wizards relate to their ostensible leadership of opposition to the Muggle-hating DEs? Is this condescension symptomatic of their rise to power or a deeper problem within the wizarding community apart from LV & co.? 3. The PM appreciates why a fearful wizarding public would prefer Scrimgeour to Fudge. What differences do we encounter between the two? Besides the lime green bowler hat 4. Fudge shows up and tells the PM a bunch of things that he is powerless to do anything about. Sirius Black's escape is the only time Fudge requested any help from the PM. There seems to be little any non-wizard could do about it, and the action provoked criticism of Fudge in PoA (Ch 3, The Knight Bus). What is the point of telling the Muggle Prime Minister anything about what is going on in the WW? Law? (What is the relationship between the WW government and the Muggle government?) Courtesy? Glaring Incompetence? 5. Fudge says the dementors are breeding, which is causing the gloomy weather throughout England. We know prior to this the dementors were guarding Azkaban and working with the Ministry, yet there was no chilly mist covering the land until now. Why weren't they breeding before? Ministry controls? An agreement? 6. Is "Serious" Black now officially innocent? 7. Scrimgeour performs an overt display of magic merely to keep his statement to the PM that Kingsley Shacklebolt, likely as not the only person nearby anyhow, is a wizard from being overheard. Then he leaves. Fudge, on the other hand takes no precautions whatsoever and then blurts out intimate knowledge of the WW. Is the Shacklebolt information somehow more sensitive than everything Fudge said? Is Scrimgeour protecting this information from Muggles, Death Eaters, or both? Or are his attempts at keeping it private just fodder for the GARBAGE SCOW (Gibberish, Altogether Redundant Blather And Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains Welcome)? (http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#scow) 8. Who might have cast the poorly performed Imperius Curse? What makes the curse poorly performed? Was it just sloppy magic, or function similarly to the other Unforgivables in that you really have to mean it for it to be successful? And here are a few discussions that involve events of Chapter One I found after fighting with Yahoomort's search (In no particular order? and read downthread): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140868 Subject: Re: Who is RAB again. WAS:Re: Snape and Regulus http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139744 Re: Is Voldie alive? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137569 Peter Pettigrew and Serius Black (was Re: DD is Dead/Snape) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136788 Subject: Chapter 1 Have Fun! KathyK* NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database *With special thanks to hitchyker42 for doing all the work ;-) Well, some From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 18 16:53:20 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:53:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141798 KathyK quoted: > Surely you can sort out ?well--*anything!*" > > To which Fudge replies, "The trouble is, the other side can do > magic too, Prime Minister." And both wizards depart. SSSusan: My favorite bit from the entire chapter! It captures in so few words the (probably understandable) misconception of the Muggle PM as well as his frustration, while also providing us with a nice, quick, all- too-undeniably-true counterargument. KathyK: > 1. JKR wrote on her website: > ******************************************* > The Opening Chapter of Book Six > > I have come close to using a chapter very like this > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going > to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about > thirteen years in the brewing. > **************************************************** > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=6 > > Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to > the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that > Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or > stylistic reasons to include this scene now? SSSusan: Am I the only one who was *disappointed* that THIS was It??? I know I had my heart set on backstory on Godric's Hollow, and this was so... NOTHING. Okay, well no, it wasn't nothing, and it had its moments of humor, but.... I think I've learned my lesson now that JKR, when she offers up one of these previews, is NOT necessarily giving us Something Big. The description of the leonine guy? Wow, did we ever toss and turn all kinds of possibilities around for that one! And he turns out to be NOT Lupin or Godric Gryffindor or the new DADA instructor, but Rufus Scrimgeour. A new character with not a huge role to play in the series, and whose physical characteristics (which were highlighted in the preview) certainly played to *no* import in HBP. Huh. And then this "I wanted to use this before" chapter which had us all thinking, "Oh, boy! BIG stuff!" Only to have it be "just" a meeting between the WW and MW head honchos. Truth be told, I have a hard time imagining just how JKR would've used this earlier. There would have been so much less to share between the two men. I could see it, sort of, at the start of PoA, and perhaps by the time of OoP, but I cannot imagine it as early as PS/SS. KathyK: > 3. The PM appreciates why a fearful wizarding public would prefer > Scrimgeour to Fudge. What differences do we encounter between the > two? Besides the lime green bowler hat SSSusan: Ooooh, excellent question... for which I don't have much of an answer! ;-) Actually, Scrimgeour gives off a definitely stronger air of competence and confidence in this chapter than Fudge ever did. Fudge is bumbling if nothing else, pretty obviously "playing" situations for damage control and the least amount of harm to his own position and office. Scrimgeour, while in the END not striking me as terribly significantly different than Fudge, at least at first gives one the impression that he *might* be. I do think it's interesting that, after this fairly promising start, we end up with a MfM who's really just incompetent in slightly different ways than the former one. Anybody disagree with me on that or care to convince me otherwise? KathyK: > 4. Fudge shows up and tells the PM a bunch of things that he is > powerless to do anything about. What is the > point of telling the Muggle Prime Minister anything about what is > going on in the WW? Law? (What is the relationship between the WW > government and the Muggle government?) Courtesy? Glaring > Incompetence? SSSusan: Hee. While I *like* Glaring Incompetence, my vote goes to courtesy. PERHAPS also information is provided in hopes of the assistance of the Muggle government, such as in the case with Sirius' escape -- you know, should they actually find themselves in a position of having discovered or cornered him. But I do think much of it is just courtesy. Run-of-the-mill disturbances or crimes need not be reported, but when there's the possibility of what I'd call "crossover consequences," it only seems fair to give the Muggle PM a heads up. KathyK: > *With special thanks to hitchyker42 for doing all the work ;-) > Well, some Siriusly Snapey Susan, waves at hitchyker42 and admonishes, "You should start posting!" ;-) From arrafah at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 16:47:03 2005 From: arrafah at hotmail.com (khatimhamidon) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:47:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141799 Hi there, I've been rereading HBP and I only noticed this just this evening: Dumbledore:"...Ah, this must be Petunia." and "We have corresponded, of course". -US edition pg 46 This shows that Dumbledore and Petunia has never met each other. Was it silly of me to think that they've met each other before? I always imagined them in some secret meeting discussing Harry's future, rather than just depending on letters. I mean, it's kind of distant and cold to expect somebody to care for a baby just through paper and ink. Or maybe Dumbledore was the one who told the Evans/Dursleys on the Potters' murders. She would have seen him then. Did the Evans die before the Potters? Oh wait, I suppose it's not important. Knut for your thought? singapotter From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Oct 18 14:53:47 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:53:47 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: Nora said: > I don't see Snape being depicted as making these sorts of gradual > changes and adjustments--but then again, I remember the image of > Harry separating him and Sirius in OotP, so I wouldn't put him on an > elevated plane of control there, either. Particularly his > relationship to Harry, which is the most important one (as everyone > in the books exists in a literary relationship to Harry), is rather > one-note. If you think he's being sincere about his general > attitudes. Well, at least after next book the "just you wait" > argument no longer obtains... > > -Nora sez: a character who shifts is more complex than one who does > not, generally > Now Lupinlore: Yes, a very good point, Nora. As it is Harry's story, it is in the relationships with Harry (or that Harry notices intimately) that change, and the lack thereof, are played out. And therefore it is within the context of those relationships that characters in the Potterverse either are, or are not, dynamic. Not fair to the characters, I guess, but that's what you get when you are in somebody else's story. I also agree that a dynamic character is more complex, generally, than a static one. But the dynamic/complex distinction is useful, I suppose. Betsy said: So, until Snape suddenly treats Harry nicely he's not a complex character for you? Now Lupinlore: Yep, pretty much. In that complexity in this discussion relates to character dynamic, meaning character change, and in that this is Harry's story and the important relationships are the one's with Harry or immediately touching on Harry, yep, you've got it exactly. An apology will also be required of course, if only because it would cost Sevvie so much to come up with it. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 17:05:17 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:05:17 -0000 Subject: Try Goyle Sr. instead (Was: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141801 Goddlefood wrote: > > Carol, > > I remain far from convinced of your counter argument. > > I have, however had useful discussions regarding my article here > with you and elsewhere and intend some revision. > > You are right about Sturgis, but straw colour is quite different > from blond. Perhaps we shoulkd also look at Goyle as a suspect. > These points and others will be addressed in my revision. > Carol responds: Aha! You've solved the case! While Goyle Sr.'s friend Crabbe Sr. is at the Battle of the DoM, named by Lucius Malfoy as he pairs off the other DEs (OoP Am. ed. 788), Goyle Sr. is not named and therefore probably was not present and consequently was not sent to Azkaban. Unlike Bagman, Goyle is an established DE, and he could well have been sent with the named DEs to Hogwarts. Bagman is never described as "huge" like the BBDE, but Goyle Sr. is one of two hulking figures in the graveyard scene in GoF: "'And here'--Voldemort moved on to *the two largest hooded figures* (my emphasis) "we have Crabbe. . . . You will do better this time, will you not Crabbe? And you, Goyle?' "They bowed, muttering dully. "'Yes, master.' "'We will, master.'" The senior Crabbe and Goyle are large and stupid, just the type to clumsily cast AKs that kill their own comrades. Crabbe, however, is in Azkaban (unless he's in St. Mungo's with his head still turning into a baby's and back again), but Goyle is at large. And Goyle Sr. quite likely resembles his son, just as Harry closely resembles James and Draco has pale blond hair, cold grey eyes, and a pointy chin exactly like Lucius's. The initial description of Gregory Goyle (the son) establishes his size and disposition: "Both of them [Crabbe and Goyle] were thickset and looked extremely mean" *SS Am. ed. 108) and "Crabbe and Goyle were a lot bigger than him or Ron" (109). Later, his shoes are referred to as "huge" (CoS Am. ed. 219). Harry's robes are a foot too short when he transforms into Goyle (217). Like father, like son regarding size. And I don't suppose I need to find evidence that the younger Crabbe and Goyle are both stupid ("You don't know how bizarre it is to see Goyle *thinking,*" says Ron, CoS 218, when Harry turns into Goyle using Polyjuice Potion), which fits nicely with the "dull" Crabbe and Goyle Sr. in the graveyard. Like father, like son again. If Goyle Sr. is an older copy of his son, he's huge, stupid, mean, oafish, and probably clumsy, all of which makes him a good candidate for the BBDE. So while Bagman is indisputably blond, he is not huge, merely an athletic man gone to seed, with a paunch very like that of half the men I know in their thirties and forties. He is missing, but we have a perfectly plausible reason for his absence (fleeing from the goblins). And while he was cleared of charges of willingly aiding a Death Eater, he has never been accused of being one himself. A skilled Beater who knows where to aim a Bludger, he seems unlikely to accidentally kill someone on his own side with a misaimed AK. Goyle Sr., OTOH, is an established Death Eater and one of the few who is not currently in Azkaban. The color of his hair is admittedly not established (and Goyle Jr.'s is merely described as "bristly"), but Goyle Sr. is indisputably one of the two largest Death Eaters in the graveyard and the father of a huge son, making it quite likely that he is "huge" himself. Goyle Jr. is a dim-witted bully, and his father, in the brief glimpse we have of him in the graveyard scene, appears to be equally dull-witted. He is not sent to the DoM, perhaps because Voldemort doesn't trust him anywhere near the Prophecy globe, and is consequently one of the few Death Eaters still available to be sent to Hogwarts. It's not at all inconceivable that the stupid, huge, clumsy father of the stupid, huge, clumsy Gregory Goyle would do such a thing. After all, his friend Crabbe got his head stuck in a Time Turner. (BTW, I can explain why I think the ugly baby-headed DE is Crabbe if anyone cares.) Carol, who wondered all this time whether Goyle's absence from the DoM was a Flint and is now convinced that it wasn't. Thanks, Goddlefrood! From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 17:31:46 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:31:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141802 > SSSusan: > And then this "I wanted to use this before" chapter which had us all > thinking, "Oh, boy! BIG stuff!" Only to have it be "just" a meeting > between the WW and MW head honchos. > > Truth be told, I have a hard time imagining just how JKR would've > used this earlier. There would have been so much less to share > between the two men. I could see it, sort of, at the start of PoA, > and perhaps by the time of OoP, but I cannot imagine it as early as > PS/SS. > I am more interested to know why she wanted to use it at all. I mean, it is not in the least surprising that she should have taken pains to *separate* the two worlds in the previous five books. It is a feasible solution plot-wise besides enabling her to avoid some inevitable awkwardness where muggle/wizard inequality is concerned. In the HBP, however, not only we have the detestable Dursleys receiving yet another portion of their just deserts, but effectively the whole muggle world at wizards' mercy. Honestly, I don't quite see why it has suddenly become so important and what sort of message she means to convey. a_svirn From hitchyker at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 18:33:08 2005 From: hitchyker at gmail.com (hitchyker42) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:33:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141803 Hi everyone, first time poster here! KathyK wrote: > 1. > Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast > to the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that > Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or > stylistic reasons to include this scene now? It seems like this scene works here mainly for thematic reasons. JKR is making it clear right off the bat now that the question of LV has been answered for the WW. He is back and his gauntlet has been thrown down. I assume what JKR meant by the possibility of using 'a chapter very like this' in previous books was the idea of showing a meeting between Fudge and the muggle Prime Minister. Clearly the information Fudge would have given in previous incarnations of this chapter would be different, or at least truncated. A chapter like this as the opener PS/SS would have consisted mainly of "Hello, I'm Cornelius Fudge. I'm a wizard and you're a muggle and I hope we never see each other again." It wouldn't be a very compelling way to begin the story, and it would be very expository in the sense that all the information about the existence of wizards and the secrecy of the WW would have been dropped into the reader's lap in a heap. The actual beginning JKR chose is much better, I think, because it starts off with the Very Normal Dursley's and their Very Normal life. And then we start to see things that are just a little off. Cat's reading signs and people with cloaks. And then we get treated to a bunch of exciting images? McGonagall's transfiguration, Dumbledore, the Put-Outter, Hagrid arriving on a flying motorcycle. The wonderful thing about the beginning of PS/SS is that it delivers exposition to the reader at just the right pace and it makes huge, huge promises for what the series has in store. In POA I still feel like the book is very much Harry's story alone. Ultimately of course, so is the whole series, but she does start to weave in threads of other's stories into it as well, and much of that begins after Harry learns about all the history revealed by the end of POA. Until that point, it is all about Harry and injecting a Fudge/PM scene into that, I think, would be too distracting and irrelevant to the book. The opening scene of GOF is actually told from non-Harry Perspective, only the second time this occurs, I think. In this context, a Fudge/PM scene would fit in better except that then the question is what do we get out of it. Essentially all Fudge had to say was that some bad stuff went down at the QWC. We would already know this from seeing it happen at the beginning and I think it's more important for us to see the events at the QWC firsthand because it's our first taste of the DEs as a group, as opposed to the various incarnations of LV in the previous books. One supremely evil wizard is one thing, but the idea of a mob of wizards doing his bidding is more terrifying still and it has to be shown on the page. Afterwards, any sort of panicked visit between Fudge and the PM would just be totally redundant and feckless. In OOP Fudge's information about the dementors and the mass breakout would come in the middle of the book and would interrupt the flow of the novel. As far as I can tell, the only times JKR breaks from the standard perspective of the books is at the beginning when she is setting up little events to mystify and intrigue us. This wouldn't qualify and I think the placement here would be distracting. The chapter works at the beginning of HBP because it emphasizes that, although it's still Harry's story, the fight has grown beyond Harry's personal struggle and it has affected the WW as a whole. Collin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 19:11:24 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:11:24 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141804 Snipping KathyK's v. excellent chapter summary, Meri (back from posting purgatory) posits her answers: > 1. JKR wrote on her website: > ******************************************* > The Opening Chapter of Book Six > > I have come close to using a chapter very like this > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going > to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about > thirteen years in the brewing. > **************************************************** > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=6 > > Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to > the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that > Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or > stylistic reasons to include this scene now? Meri: I personally loved this scene (heck, I read it in the parking lot of the bookstore at 12:30 in the morning with one of the friends I made that night pacing me page for page). I think it gave us a better idea of how the WW relates to the RW and answered (at least my) questions about how the RW authorities react to incidents in the WW. I think it also serves, to some extent, as a refresher of the events of the last five books (which JKR must be finding harder and harder to summarize as the years go on). I also think that this would be kinda pointless (and relatively short) had she included it in an earlier book, though I have to say I would be interested to see Fudge and the PM on the night that LV disappeared, just for the heck of it. Though I will say I too had my heart set on a trip back to Godric's Hollow in Chapter 1, but cest'la vie. I think we're pretty much guaranteed that in book 7 now. > 2. The PM felt like an `ignorant schoolboy.' Is this truly how they > were treating him and if so, how does the condescension of the two > wizards relate to their ostensible leadership of opposition to the > Muggle-hating DEs? Is this condescension symptomatic of their rise > to power or a deeper problem within the wizarding community apart > from LV & co.? Meri: I think we see this to some extent with the way Arthur Weasley looks at Muggles (and I know this has come up before). He seems to look at them as funny, adorable little children who need to be looked out for and protected and kept from hurting themselves, just as the PM feels he is being treated by Fudge. And I think that, on Fudge's part, he wasn't treating the PM like an equal, like the head of a powerful national government. Now to be fair, there really is now way to equalize their possitions, because the WW is probably well informed of what goes on in the RW for a lot of reasons, but perhaps if Fudge had asked for help it would have alieviated some of the PM's perception of being condescended to. Snip > 4. Fudge shows up and tells the PM a bunch of things that he is > powerless to do anything about. Sirius Black's escape is the only > time Fudge requested any help from the PM. There seems to be little > any non-wizard could do about it, and the action provoked criticism > of Fudge in PoA (Ch 3, The Knight Bus). What is the point of > telling the Muggle Prime Minister anything about what is going on in > the WW? Law? (What is the relationship between the WW government > and the Muggle government?) Courtesy? Glaring Incompetence? Meri: I like to think that the WW just accepts that they cannot completely cut themselves off from the RW, just as the RW cannot completely absorb the WW. As much as we want to think that they are totally seperate entities IMHO they aren't. I almost wish that the chapter had delved deeper into the relationship between the two worlds. I've always wondered: Do wizrads have any relationship to the royal family? Do they sing "God Save the Queen"? Are they technically citizens of the RW? Do they pay taxes, serve in the military when there's a draft, attend regular primary schools, shop at the Gap? We'll never be unified again, perhaps, but I think our fates are intertwined. After all, if the RW suffered from a nuclear WWIII the WW would die just as swiftly as if LV took hold. > 5. Fudge says the dementors are breeding, which is causing the > gloomy weather throughout England. We know prior to this the > dementors were guarding Azkaban and working with the Ministry, yet > there was no chilly mist covering the land until now. Why weren't > they breeding before? Ministry controls? An agreement? Meri: Maybe dementors can only breed if given proper scope for their powers, which is what LV is giving them. > 6. Is "Serious" Black now officially innocent? Meri: Goodness gracious me, I should hope so. I think he must be if DD is able to execute his last will and testament and pass on to Harry all of Sirius' possessions. Besides, even if he wasn't, don't you think the MoM has bigger fish to fry now, like that Stan Shunpike. Now there's a nefarious character if I ever saw one ;-). From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 18 19:40:34 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:40:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141805 > 1. JKR wrote on her website: > ******************************************* > The Opening Chapter of Book Six > > I have come close to using a chapter very like this > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going > to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about > thirteen years in the brewing. > **************************************************** > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=6 > > Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to > the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that > Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or > stylistic reasons to include this scene now?'' Pippin: One of the big challenges in a fantasy or sci-fi story is all the exposition that needs to be done before the reader can understand what's going on. It wouldn't surprise me if JKR brainstormed dozens ways of getting information to the reader before she even started writing Book One. In that book McGonagall could ask the ignorant questions, and later on Harry could, but since Harry is now no longer an 'ignorant schoolboy' somebody else has to ask the half-wit questions on behalf of the hapless reader. > > 7. Scrimgeour performs an overt display of magic merely to keep his > statement to the PM that Kingsley Shacklebolt, likely as not the > only person nearby anyhow, is a wizard from being overheard. Then > he leaves. Fudge, on the other hand takes no precautions whatsoever > and then blurts out intimate knowledge of the WW. Pippin: Scrimgeour is an ex-auror, and precautions would come naturally to him. As Dumbledore says, he takes Lord Voldemort seriously. Fudge, on the other hand, even though he knows now the danger is real, is still not reacting appropriately. After all, if the Ministry can plant agents in the PM's office, the Death Eaters can too. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 18 20:11:58 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:11:58 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141806 Neri: > Again, I don't have any problem with interpretation. I just think that > treating interpretation as canon might lead you to some weird places. Potioncat: I agree the "look of peace" was an interpretation that sort of fixed itself as coming from canon; I also think the interpretation itself is still valid. I'll also accept as valid the argument the the expression is meaningless, although I wouldn't agree with that view. Now, consider the famous 5 hour delay that has so tarnished Professor Snape's otherwise gleaming reputation. That's interpretation too. I think many, (very, very many) of us have at one time or another, so convinced ourselves of some theory, we've forgotten it wasn't proven canon; or we were surprised when JKR took its basis in an unexpected direction. It's not a bad idea to go back to canon every now and then to make sure we've got it right. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Oct 18 20:36:55 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:36:55 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141807 KathyK, on HBP Ch 1 The Other Minister: > Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to > the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that > Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or > stylistic reasons to include this scene now? Ceridwen: I think the scene works. I enjoyed seeing the interaction between the WW and MW representatives. It worked here because now there's plenty of reason to show us this interaction. There's a lot going on off-stage: 'hurricanes', a collapsed bridge that killed some Muggles, Dementors out of Azkaban and breeding, the deaths of Amelia Bones and Emmaline Vance. We can be shown all of this, which would make the book a lot longer IMO; We can learn about the incidents as they're broadcast on the news through Harry's POV and then find out later that it's Dementors, Death Eaters and Werewolves; or we can get a quick run-down which would also show us that the MW is affected by Voldemort's activities, and the war is both heating up in the WW, and getting dangerous for Muggles, too. I don't think it would have worked before the conflict spilled over into the Muggle World. > > 2. The PM felt like an `ignorant schoolboy.' Is this truly how they > were treating him and if so, how does the condescension of the two > wizards relate to their ostensible leadership of opposition to the > Muggle-hating DEs? Is this condescension symptomatic of their rise > to power or a deeper problem within the wizarding community apart > from LV & co.? Ceridwen: Yes, that's how they were treating him. It's a condescention that I think is evident throughout the WW. Not just Fudge and Scrimgeour, though as leaders they may have more condescention than most. But, I do think it's symptomatic of a deeper problem/attitude. > > 3. The PM appreciates why a fearful wizarding public would prefer > Scrimgeour to Fudge. What differences do we encounter between the > two? Besides the lime green bowler hat Ceridwen: Scrimgeour comes in dynamically, does a bunch of magic (that probably wasn't necessary or he would have admonished Fudge for not having done so earlier). He looks more capable with his resemblance to a lion, which is used as a guard (statues) at places like older libraries. He gets right down to business instead of 'fudging' around. He speaks directly instead of making waffling statements. > > 4. Fudge shows up and tells the PM a bunch of things that he is > powerless to do anything about. Sirius Black's escape is the only > time Fudge requested any help from the PM. There seems to be little > any non-wizard could do about it, and the action provoked criticism > of Fudge in PoA (Ch 3, The Knight Bus). What is the point of > telling the Muggle Prime Minister anything about what is going on in > the WW? Law? (What is the relationship between the WW government > and the Muggle government?) Courtesy? Glaring Incompetence? Ceridwen: I'm sorry that telling the Muggle PM provoked criticism of Fudge. I think it showed a willingness to get beyond the differences the WW sees between themselves and Muggles, and addresses an issue that could affect the MW. Sirius Black was presumed to have killed 12 Muggles, it was not only courtesy, but a duty, for Fudge to tell his counterpart. It's the same thing done between governments in the RW, let your counterpart know about something that may or will affect their people. > > 5. Fudge says the dementors are breeding, which is causing the > gloomy weather throughout England. We know prior to this the > dementors were guarding Azkaban and working with the Ministry, yet > there was no chilly mist covering the land until now. Why weren't > they breeding before? Ministry controls? An agreement? Ceridwen: Maybe Ministry controls. Allowing only limited breeding, perhaps? Or, it could be that they were too restricted on Azkaban to breed much beyond their population. Or, they're like cougars, territorial, and to have offspring, they need to have a certain amount of space. Or, they did breed, but only in remote places near Azkaban (or on it, how would that be for affecting prisoners?), and the only reason it's noticeable now is because they're breeding closer to populated centers. > > 6. Is "Serious" Black now officially innocent? Ceridwen: Apparently: "Black? Black?" said Fudge distractedly, turning his bowler rapidly in his fingers. "Sirius Black, you mean? Merlin's beard, no. Black's dead. Turns out we were - er - mistaken about Black. He was innocent after all... *(snip)* ...There's going to be an inquiry, actually..." (HBP pg. 11 US) > > 7. Scrimgeour performs an overt display of magic merely to keep his > statement to the PM that Kingsley Shacklebolt, likely as not the > only person nearby anyhow, is a wizard from being overheard. Then > he leaves. Fudge, on the other hand takes no precautions whatsoever > and then blurts out intimate knowledge of the WW. Is the > Shacklebolt information somehow more sensitive than everything Fudge > said? Is Scrimgeour protecting this information from Muggles, Death > Eaters, or both? Or are his attempts at keeping it private just > fodder for the GARBAGE SCOW (Gibberish, Altogether Redundant Blather > And Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains Welcome)? > (http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#scow) Ceridwen: I think he's trying to impress the PM with his magic, as well as trying to appear different from Fudge. Fudge, and presumably his predecessors, have come to talk to the Muggle PM for ages, did they all, except for Fudge, go through the rigamarole? I think this is part of what impressed the PM about Scrimgeour, it's a part of his demeanor. > > 8. Who might have cast the poorly performed Imperius Curse? What > makes the curse poorly performed? Was it just sloppy magic, or > function similarly to the other Unforgivables in that you really > have to mean it for it to be successful? Ceridwen: I don't know who cast it. Is there a DE in the Muggle government? Maybe Scrimgeour was right to be so cautious? Either way, I think it's sloppy magic, just because Muggles aren't as important to Wizards, and especially not to DEs and others sympathetic to LV's cause. Ceridwen. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 19:08:52 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051018190852.274.qmail@web34904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141808 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 1, The Other Minister Q.1:The Opening Chapter of Book Six Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or stylistic reasons to include this scene now? CH3ed: I think it works well. Tho, like others, I was hoping for more background info (after such a long wait). I like the change of scenery into opening the book from the Muggle World. JKR did separate the WW and the RW in her previous books when LV and his gang were laying low. Now that the DEs are actively causing troubles indiscriminately (both muggles and wizards are getting it) the two worlds that have been existing along side each other in blissful mutual ignorance can no longer stay artificially separated. It is like the real world when the terrorists struck at 9/11 or at Madrid, Bali, Russia and London. The nations who weren't on the friendliest terms before become more united when they see that they share serious problems and none of them is immune to terrorist strikes. I think the cooperation between the good wizards and the muggles is called for in book 7 (tho I don't quite know if the muggles would be able to help much). And also the wizards and the other magical populations (centaurs, goblins, house-elves? ) should somehow find a way to unite in the fight against LV, his DEs and the giants and inferi. Perhaps Harry will become the uniting force (without being Scrimgeor's puppet, of course). That may help with the finding and the destroying of 4 horcruxes. From infidel_castro at walla.com Tue Oct 18 16:02:42 2005 From: infidel_castro at walla.com (evol_naixram) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:02:42 -0000 Subject: new to the group woohoo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141809 Hi, my name is Tracy and I live in portland, OR. I got through reading all the books in the past month. It took me a while to gather up the nerve to actually read the HP books, but now I'm a huge fan, and I dork out to HP more than I ever would've imagined! When book six first came out, my gf got the book at the release, and I acquired a spoiler the very next day (she wasn't happy about my attempts to humor her :P). Anyhoo, I love Snape! I don't know why! He's my favorite :P Of course, I love Neville, too. So after reading all these books, I think Dumbledore gave Snape the order to kill him, RAB is Reubeus (sp?) Black (perhaps?), Draco probably won't end up being on the "dark side", and Dumbledore will live with the other portraits of dead headmasters... which honestly doesn't seem like he's really dead. What was JKR getting at with the death and portraits? I mean, what's supposed to really happen after death in HP? Anyhoo... I'll be lurking :) From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Oct 18 20:51:29 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:51:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: <20051018190852.274.qmail@web34904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001501c5d425$b81f88c0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141810 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 1, The Other Minister Q.1:The Opening Chapter of Book Six Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or stylistic reasons to include this scene now? Sherry: i loved this chapter! I thought it was a great way to tell the reader the condition of things without having to do it from Harry's POV. Eventually, the trouble in the WW had to spill over into the muggle world, and this was a good way to show it. Actually, since POA, I'd wondered about the relationship between the minister of magic and the Prime Minister. And besides, it was funny. I mean, one of the funniest lines in the book is when the Prime minister says, "He's only quacking." that really cracked me up. I kept trying to picture Tony Blair saying that about one of his officials. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 20:53:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:53:02 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141811 Neri wrote: > I wasn't accusing anybody. I just thought that the process of a tiny, completely innocent phrase gradually acquiring the status of canon is interesting and even, might I say, educational. This was the usual process that I encountered (throughout many posts by many posters): > > A) Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the angle of his arms and > legs he might have been sleeping. > > B) Dumbledore had a peaceful expression when he died. > > C) Dumbledore was not betrayed. He died satisfied that whatever he > asked of Snape will be done. > > A is canon. B is a subtle interpretation of canon. The meaning of A could well be that Dumbledore's expression was neutral, or that it's simply not very important for the story. However, B isn't important by itself, but as a stepping stone to C. Once A is all but forgotten and B is established as the undisputed canon (and by September it was, by all the posters I've seen) C seems almost unavoidable. With the > general direction of the process it would have probably acquired a near-canon status next. You need to read A next to C to realize that there's some distance between the original and the interpretation. > Again, I don't have any problem with interpretation. I just think that treating interpretation as canon might lead you to some weird places. Carol responds: I don't know of anyone who views C as canonical, and those of us who believe that B is a valid interpretation do not necessarily agree on what the (apparently) peaceful expression means. Once again, the quote that you so kindly supplied: "Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again could he help..." Once again, Dumbledore looks as if he's asleep (if Harry ignores his position and looks only at his face). Harry straightens Dumbledore's spectacles and gazes into his "wise old face." (Fact, right, with no interpretation or speculation?) I interpret this evidence to mean that Dumbledore looks like Dumbledore with no notable change in his "wise old face" except that his eyes are closed, in marked contrast to Cedric, whose "open gray eyes [were] blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house" (GoF Am. ed. 638). Imagine Harry gazing into DD's face if the once twinkling blue eyes stared back at him, expressionless and empty rather than closed, with their presumed blankness concealed. Surely he would react as he did with Cedric, feeling only horror, not the gentle impulse to straighten DD's glasses. Dumbledore does not look either surprised (like Cedric) or terrified (like the Riddles), all of whom died instantly and none of whom had time to close their eyes. (That's the way an Avada Kedavra works, from what we've seen.) I think we can at least say without contradiction that DD's "wise old face" is *composed*, especially if paired with the *canonical* peaceful expression in the portrait, which is also sleeping, and contrasted with those of the known AK victims. We can't, of course, declare Snape innocent on the grounds of Dumbledore's expression (though we can speculate on what a failed or fake AK might mean in terms of his culpability). But, like the blast that lifted Dumbledore off the ground rather than causing him to fall dead instantly, DD's expression, and particularly his closed eyes, is one of several pieces of evidence (no blinding flash, DD blasted over the wall rather than falling instantly dead) that seem to differ markedly from the undisputed AKs we've seen. It is reasonable to examine the evidence and hypothesize on the basis of it. That, I believe, is what we do on this list. (I, for one, haven't forgotten that Narcissa's tears canonically splashing onto Snape's chest led to ACID POPS. :-) ) Carol, who considers the "peaceful expression" *semi*canonical, but will try to remember to say "DD's apparently composed expression" in future From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:13:35 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:13:35 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141812 > >>Nora: > > I don't see Snape being depicted as making these sorts of > gradual changes and adjustments--but then again, I remember the > image of Harry separating him and Sirius in OotP, so I wouldn't > put him on an elevated plane of control there, either. Betsy Hp: Oh, Snape was in perfect control. Sirius was the one knocking over furniture and elevating the threat level. When they finally squared off Sirius looked "livid" and Snape "calculating". Sirius resorts to schoolboy name calling, and even snarls at Harry when Harry tries to stop him. Harry doesn't try and seperate Snape and Sirius, he tries to talk Sirius down and then tries to force him down. Even Harry could tell that Sirius was the loose cannon in that particular scene. Frankly, if Snape had been the loose cannon, I don't think Harry would have jumped between the two men. He was counting on Sirius not hexing him out of the way, I would imagine. I don't think Harry would count on the possibility of his injury stopping an out of control Snape. > >>Nora: > Particularly his relationship to Harry, which is the most > important one (as everyone in the books exists in a literary > relationship to Harry), is rather one-note. > Betsy Hp: And which note would that be? The one where he disciplines Harry whenever he catches him in wrongdoing? The one where he saves Harry's life whenever he's around when Harry's life is in jeopardy? The one where he tries to help Harry keep Voldemort out of his head? The one where he takes great pleasure in badmouthing Harry's father? I would agree with colebiancardi (post #141771), that *Harry* is rather one-note when it comes to Snape. But Snape, though not Harry Potter's number one fan, is not so one-note when it comes to how he interacts with Harry. > >>Nora: > a character who shifts is more complex than one who does > not, generally Betsy Hp: Agrees. But then, the Potterverse characters are not the most complex characters out there. Within the Potterverse, however, Snape is one of the more complex characters. > >>Betsy Hp: > So, until Snape suddenly treats Harry nicely he's not a complex > character for you? > >>Lupinlore: > Yep, pretty much. In that complexity in this discussion relates > to character dynamic, meaning character change, and in that this > is Harry's story and the important relationships are the one's > with Harry or immediately touching on Harry, yep, you've got it > exactly. Betsy Hp: Actually, I think a truly dynamic Snape would adjust his relationship with *Lupin* rather than Harry. Snape's problem has been with the Marauders, and since Lupin is the only surviving Marauder (well, there is Peter, but he's certainly given up his club membership by now) he's the only one Snape can use to prove a change of heart. (I'm by no means prediticting this will ever happen. It'd be nice, but I'm don't recall any sort of forshadowing of this sort of change.) Within the Harry/Snape relationship the problem, IMO, has always been Harry. It's Harry who needs to change his view of Snape, not the other way around. Actually, if Harry doesn't change his view of Snape he runs a real risk, IMO, of becoming exactly like Snape. So sure of his own rightness in their clash and bitter to the bone over Snape's very existence. > >>Lupinlore: > An apology will also be required of course, if only because it > would cost Sevvie so much to come up with it. Betsy Hp: I'm sorry, Harry, that I saved your life when Quirrell nearly killed you. I'm sorry, Harry, that when Voldemort was invading your mind I tried to train you to keep him out. I'm sorry, Harry, that when you were reading a magazine in my class I took issue with it. I'm sorry, Harry, that I scolded you for sneaking out to Hogsmeade when an escaped murder was out for your blood. I'm sorry, Harry, that I prevented Umbridge from dosing you with veritaserum. I'm sorry, Harry, that when you totally lost your head and went running off to the Ministry with your friends in tow (instead of consulting with me, the one Order member left in Hogwarts) I informed the Order enabling them to save not only your life but the life of your friends. I'm sorry, Harry, that when you nearly killed a classmate I saved that classmate's life and prevented you being labeled a murderer. Hmmm, actually, I think Snape may well enjoy the whole apologizing thing. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:39:40 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:39:40 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? ( Petunia)/ Snape's apologising to Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141813 Lupinlore: > Hmmm. Or perhaps the fact that she was threatened with dreadful > consequences by the Order has something to do with it? Amazing > how well those threats work. They probably would have worked > earlier, too. Which is yet another reason I think JKR is backing > off the whole issue. Alla: Agreed 100%. Do you know what else I find to be interesting? As far as I can remember there was absolutely NO explanation given in HBP as to why Order suddenly interfered on Harry's behalf and why they did not do it earlier. That tells me that JKR did NOT have any hidden circumstances which would prevent Dumbledore from doing so - like Petunia throwing Harry out or something like that. Lupinlore: > Still, Petunia does probably have some information to reveal. But > I wouldn't hold my breath for a change of character. JKR herself > has, after all, said "it's probably too late for Vernon and Petunia." Alla: I think it is still a possibility that Privet Drive will be attacked and Harry will save them and may be Petunia will grudgingly thank him, but nothing more than that, IMO. Oh maybe I should not even hold my breath for that, since Harry already did saved Dudley from the Dementors and I don't remember Petunia thanking him then. One may argue that she let him stay, but I think that she was simply scared of the Howler, that is it. Just me of course. > > >>Lupinlore: > > An apology will also be required of course, if only because it > > would cost Sevvie so much to come up with it. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm sorry, Harry, that I saved your life when Quirrell nearly killed > you. I'm sorry, Harry, that when Voldemort was invading your mind I > tried to train you to keep him out. > Hmmm, actually, I think Snape may well enjoy the whole apologizing Alla: Mine version of Snape apology will be much shorter and not tongue in cheek. I am sorry Harry for giving a murderous maniac a reason to kill your parents. I am sorry for helping you to grew up as an orphan. I am really sorry that because of that you had to grew up with Dursleys. I have A LOT of doubt that Snape will enjoy make that kind of apology, not only that but I also doubt that Snape would ever want to make that kind of apology, like tryly remorseful person should, IMO. I also happen to think that Snape is not only the problem in Harry/Snape relationship, but he owns this problem from the very beginning. See, I can grasp the idea of Snape redemption, I really, really do and I even think that it may work well, but I absolutely cannot grasp blaming Harry for looking at Snape in hateful way. I cannot imagine any OTHER way Harry would look at him. I am pretty confident that Harry would realise at the end that if Snape is DD!M , then he is a pathetic person, stuck in the past, which needs to be pitied IMO, of course.( HA! I bet that would go well with Snape - Harry pitying him :)), but I am still keep hoping that Snape will turn to be OFH or ESE and either be redeemed or not, but still die. JMO, Alla From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:42:15 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:42:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141814 > KathyK: > 1. JKR wrote on her website: > ******************************************* > The Opening Chapter of Book Six > > I have come close to using a chapter very like this > in 'Philosopher's Stone' (it was one of the discarded first > chapters), 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and 'Order of the Phoenix' but > here, finally, it works, so it's staying. And that's all I'm going > to say, but when you read it, just know that it's been about > thirteen years in the brewing. > **************************************************** > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=6 > > Does this scene work? If so, what made it work here in contrast to > the other potential locations in the series? Is it simply that > Fudge has more information to disseminate or are there thematic or > stylistic reasons to include this scene now? > SSSusan: > Am I the only one who was *disappointed* that THIS was It??? > I know I had my heart set on backstory on Godric's Hollow, > and this was so... NOTHING. Okay, well no, it wasn't nothing, > and it had its moments of humor, but.... > > > Truth be told, I have a hard time imagining just how JKR would've > used this earlier. There would have been so much less to share > between the two men. I could see it, sort of, at the start of PoA, > and perhaps by the time of OoP, but I cannot imagine it as early as > PS/SS. > n_longbottom01: I agree the scene is a bit of a letdown to those who spent time speculating ahead of time about the previously abandoned and now finally used chapter. But the scene serves its purpose... the casual Harry Potter reader is brought back up to speed on what's going on in the wizarding world. If you hadn't read the previous books at all, or you hadn't read them in a long time, this entertaining little exchange between the wizarding and muggle governments reminds you where the major pieces are set on the gameboard. I agree that there would have been "so much less to share" if this had been the opening chapter of Prisoner of Azkaban or The Order of the Phoenix, but there would have been a lot of interesting information in this scene if it was the opening chapter of the first book. I think the scene would have been set in approximately the same time frame as "The Boy Who Lived." The scene could have been entirely about the events at Godric's Hollow. The scene wouldn't have worked as well at the beginning of the series... sure we might have gotten some juicy information up front, but the opening to the series that we got works better. We got to see some intriguing events that lead up to Harry being left on his Aunt and Uncle's doorstep, and then we learned about the Wizarding World along with Harry. I think the scene works well where it is in the series. We know enough about the ministry by this point in the series that it is fun to see the ministry interact with the muggle government, even though the conversation really only rehashes what has come before, rather than doing much to advance the story. --n_longbottom01 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 22:08:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:08:03 -0000 Subject: Teacher Snape (I know--sorry)(was:Re: Twist JKR?/ Some spoilers for Les Mis..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141815 > >>Julie: > > I see your point about Snape not teaching children. His methods > leave a lot to be desired, and he'd probably be better off > elsewhere (and happier, as certainly would most of his students!). Betsy Hp: I shouldn't do this. I really shouldn't. And I nearly did walk away from this comment, but I just couldn't. I honestly think Snape is a good teacher. And, I really think he enjoys his job. No teacher, bored and miserable with where their life has brought them, would give the opening speech Snape did in PS/SS. He was a man inspired and trying to inspire his students. Another point in Snape's favor (and I know I'll lose most of you on this) is Neville. Neville is a potions disaster. He not only gets the potions wrong, he usually finds the most distructive way imaginable of getting it wrong. And yet, Snape doesn't give up on him. He could have had Neville sit in the corner, twiddling his thumbs during potions. Neville would have been happier, the class would have been more peaceful, and Snape would have had an easier job of it. Neville would have flunked out, of course, of Potions at least and possibly even Hogwarts (as Ron and Harry hope will happen to either Crabbe or Goyle in CoS, IIRC). But if Snape really hated teaching why would he care? Instead, however, Snape pushes Neville, and pushes Neville and Neville passes, every year. He even appears (his looking happy per Harry during the exam) to pull a Potion's OWL. That's a mark of a good teacher to my mind. No, Snape is not the most perfect teacher I've ever seen. Blatent favoritism is never a good thing. But he's the sort of teacher I wish I'd had while growing up. I went to good public (the US kind, not the English) schools, so I had good teachers, but some of them could be played so very easily (the grades I got while not doing any homework astounded me, even back then). Snape, or a Snape-type would have been a refreshing (though rather scary, I'll admit) change. > >>Julie: > > > > (Does anyone but me ever wonder why there wasn't an *out and > > out* war between Snape and the Weasley twins during their years > > in Potions class? > > > >>Nathaniel: > I'm not sure I'd call it respect per se. Right before the Weasley > twins "pull a Weasley" they tell Hermione that they no longer care > about being expelled, but that previous to that moment they did > care. > > It is just my opinion that they do not "respect" Snape or really > even fear him, but rather fall just short of crossing that > proverbial line that would really get them into trouble. Betsy Hp: Or, maybe since the twins have such an interest in potions themselves (see all of their candy products) they decided to take advantage of the opportunity to learn what Snape had to teach them. The twins do hate anything Slytherin, of course, so I doubt Snape was ever their favorite teacher. Ron tells Harry in PS/SS: "Snape's always taking points off Fred and George." [scholastic paperback p.140] Which means they probably acted up a bit anyway. But I do agree, Nathaniel, that they'd be careful about crossing a certain line. And I imagine they didn't have too hard a time keeping up. Betsy Hp From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 22:12:28 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:12:28 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141816 > Potioncat: > I agree the "look of peace" was an interpretation that sort of fixed > itself as coming from canon; I also think the interpretation itself is > still valid. I'll also accept as valid the argument the the expression > is meaningless, although I wouldn't agree with that view. > > Now, consider the famous 5 hour delay that has so tarnished Professor > Snape's otherwise gleaming reputation. That's interpretation too. > Neri: The 5 hrs *difference* between the time Umbridge took Harry and Hermione to the forest and the time of the Order members breaking into the DoM ? this time difference *is* canon. It might be a flint, and in that case it's flinty canon, like Bill and Charlie's ages. It might actually be only 4 hrs (or it might be 6 hrs), but there *is* certainly several hours difference, corroborated not by one but many canon details that fit quite well together. You can't make this time difference disappear unless you make totally absurd assumptions, such as dinnertime at Hogwarts only 3 hrs before first light of dawn, or the battle between the Order and the DEs taking 4 hrs. Snape's *delay* during that period is, indeed, an interpretation, and I never pretended it's canon. The problem is that, out of these several hours of difference, what isn't Snape's delay must be the Order's delay. So you basically have to choose what you believe ? that Snape delayed, or that Sirius, Lupin, Moody, Tonks and Shaklebolt delayed. Interestingly no one, not even the most devoted Snape fans, ever tried convincing me it's the second possibility. Dumbledore "peaceful expression" is a different kind of interpretation. It's not a situation in which you have to choose between two assumptions, one of which is very problematic or totally absurd. It's a choice between two assumptions that are, from the outset, equally probable, and the only criterion for choosing between them is the sentence "Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the angle of his arms and legs he might have been sleeping". > Potioncat: > I think many, (very, very many) of us have at one time or another, so > convinced ourselves of some theory, we've forgotten it wasn't proven > canon; or we were surprised when JKR took its basis in an unexpected > direction. It's not a bad idea to go back to canon every now and then > to make sure we've got it right. > Neri: I fully agree with that, which is why my posts generally have a lot of quoted canon in them. Neri From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 22:38:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:38:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > SSSusan: > > > And then this "I wanted to use this before" chapter which had us > > all thinking, "Oh, boy! BIG stuff!" Only to have it be "just" a > > meeting between the WW and MW head honchos. > > > > Truth be told, I have a hard time imagining just how JKR would've > > used this earlier. There would have been so much less to share > > between the two men. ... > > > a_svirn: > I am more interested to know why she wanted to use it at all. I > mean, it is not in the least surprising that she should have taken > pains to *separate* the two worlds in the previous five books. It is > a feasible solution plot-wise besides enabling her to avoid some > inevitable awkwardness where muggle/wizard inequality is concerned. > > ..edited... > > a_svirn > bboyminn: Sometimes an author just has a cool plot idea. I'm sure JKR thought it would be cool to see the interaction between the Muggle and Magic governments, and it was at least that, cool. But, I also agree that it couldn't have possibly worked before now. Certainly PoA could have started with Fudge informing the PM, but that's kind of a waste of a good scene; not all that much to say and do, an not that much of a reason for the PM to get frustrated. So, really, I don't think it was much more than that, a cool chapter idea that finally worked. Just a thought. STeve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 21:09:33 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:09:33 -0000 Subject: Try Goyle Sr. instead (Was: Bagman as Loyal Death Eater and Big Blond) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141818 Carol wrote: > Crabbe got his head stuck in a Time Turner. > Carol, who wondered all this time whether Goyle's absence > from the DoM was a Flint and is now convinced that it > wasn't. Thanks, Goddlefrood! Goddlefrood replies: I agree Crabbe was the later to be bay headed Death Eater. There is description of a large muscly man at the relevant point in OotP. Also that's the good part of these forums, ideas get thrown out and answers can be found. There are suspicions on my part as to Bagman still and a revised article will address whether he, Goyle or possibly even Bagman's brother Otto is the BBDE. Oh, and by the way, despite the use of big blond Death Eater by myself, I got that title from the HP Lexicon. In the book the Death Eater in question is described as "enormous", "massive" and "huge" at various points, but never as "big". Tata for now Goddlefrood From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 00:10:27 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:10:27 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141819 > Carol: > > "Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms > and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened > the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of > blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the > wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible > truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again > could he help..." > > Once again, Dumbledore looks as if he's asleep (if Harry ignores his > position and looks only at his face). Harry straightens Dumbledore's > spectacles and gazes into his "wise old face." (Fact, right, with no > interpretation or speculation?) CV: I think part of the "peaceful look" extension comes from the fact that he is still wearing his specticles, which are just crooked. Given all the recent activity, one would have expected his glasses to be in worse condition or missing, wouldn't you say? Unless you believe, as I do, that it's all a fake. Carol: > It is reasonable to examine the evidence and hypothesize on the basis > of it. That, I believe, is what we do on this list. (I, for one, > haven't forgotten that Narcissa's tears canonically splashing onto > Snape's chest led to ACID POPS. :-) ) > > Carol, who considers the "peaceful expression" *semi*canonical, but > will try to remember to say "DD's apparently composed expression" in > future > CV: Me, too. From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 00:16:02 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:16:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141820 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > > 2. The PM felt like an `ignorant schoolboy.' Is this truly how they > were treating him and if so, how does the condescension of the two > wizards relate to their ostensible leadership of opposition to the > Muggle-hating DEs? Is this condescension symptomatic of their rise > to power or a deeper problem within the wizarding community apart > from LV & co.? > CV: One wonders if the Other Minister could have summoned the MoM through the portrait. The schism between the worlds seems quite complete if no minister had ever tried it. Wouldn't it have been so tempting to get a bit of magical assistance in a tight political spot? CV From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 01:03:00 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:03:00 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > And which note would that be? The one where he disciplines Harry > whenever he catches him in wrongdoing? The one where he saves > Harry's life whenever he's around when Harry's life is in > jeopardy? The one where he tries to help Harry keep Voldemort out > of his head? The one where he takes great pleasure in badmouthing > Harry's father? The note that I overwhelmingly read of Snape towards Harry is, regardless of whether his actions (can be read to be) beneficial or vindictive, is "you are a little shit, I have an accurate estimation of who and what you are, and you are not special." Special emphasis on how much Snape thinks he's right on #2, which he tends to think about most people and things: oh, Snapeykins, never get around to reading those classical tragoidiai? I'd agree that Harry has a rather limited perspective on Snape, although I'd still think it would be absolutely hilarious if Harry's suspicions turned out to be fundamentally correct, finally. But Snape is probably misreading Harry, as well. He *does* continually harp upon James (got to love how Snape brings that up even when he's, you know, just killed the Headmaster and is fleeing the castle), and even Dumbledore has commented upon Snape's relationship to Harry being continually inflected by that. [And here I thought you DDM! theorists believed in Dumbledore no matter what he said.] Is there any appreciation for Harry's sterling qualities, which all the rest of the professoriate seem to pick up on? Anything like the love and comraderie shared with Dumbledore? Grudging at best, malicious at worst. Every time I go back and read the books to remind myself of what's actually there, I'm surprised about how little of it there is. > Betsy Hp: > Agrees. But then, the Potterverse characters are not the most > complex characters out there. Within the Potterverse, however, > Snape is one of the more complex characters. I'd say potentially complex, because as I've harped on before, Snape's complexity--being based on withholds--is the kind that can be collapsed with a few revelations. For instance, say that he *is* ESE: he's not nearly as complex then, is he, because his 'conversion' was not sincere. Or say that we find out he's had one major motivating reason for everything he's done. Less complex, in an instant...like how a fraction reduces down. > Within the Harry/Snape relationship the problem, IMO, has always > been Harry. It's Harry who needs to change his view of Snape, not > the other way around. I think at minimum it's mutual. Snape has certainly shown minimal signs of any kind of flexibility and adaptation in his views of Harry. I find it hard to imagine that Snape has/could have the kind of faith in Harry that Dumbledore had, for instance. Do any of us (especially you folks who rely so heavily upon Dumbledore's judgement) think that DD is wrong in this? If he's not wrong, doesn't Snape need to change his view of Harry and embrace him as the agent of Voldemort's downfall? -Nora laughs and agrees that poor characters get no choice about the novel that they're in From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 02:03:04 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:03:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141822 > > 1. Does this scene work? The question of whether the scene works better here than in an earlier book has been pretty thoroughly answered in the affirmative,so I'll skip that part. I personally like the chapter chiefly because it's a refreshing way to provide the information needed by first-time readers of the HP bppks (Did anyone really start the series with Book 5? Well, maybe a few dozen people.) Previous books, notably CoS and PoA, provided tedious exposition about Harry's scar, the Dursleys being Muggles, Snape being Harry's least favorite professor, etc. Events in the WW were announced through articles in the Daily Prophet (still a useful device, but it can't do everything). This time much more is happening in the WW, and it's refreshing to see it from a different perspective. Here as in chapter 1 of SS/PS and chapter 1 of GoF, the POV character is a Muggle--one of us--but of course in a much more responsible position with regard to dealing with the calamities than either the now-dead Bryce or Vernon Dursley. (The third-person narrator is given a different twist in chapter 2--no POV character at all--but since that chapter is in Potioncat's capable hands, I won't say any more about it here.) I liked the subtle way in which Fudge's firing was revealed (rather different from the Quibbler version we were treated to on JKR's website!) and the revelation that Fudge was really the same well-intentioned but weak man we saw in PoA and no longer the angry opponent of Dumbledore who resorted to all sorts of dishonest manipulation to avoid confessing (or believing) that Voldythingy was really back. (Maybe he was under the influence of Umbridge in OoP?) I enjoyed the humor as well. "Naturally he thought that the long campaign and the strain of the election had caused him to go mad" (Am. ed. 5). BTW, I wonder how the oil painting of the froglike little man in a long silver wig, obviously a wizard, got into the Muggle Prime Minister's office. And did anyone notice the "we shall arrange for the President [of the United States?] to forget to call" (Am. ed. 3)? Memory Charms in the Oval Office? Moles in the White House?) Interesting that the PM knows about the Bones and Vance murders but doesn't realize that Bones and Vance were witches (5 and 14). > 2. The PM felt like an `ignorant schoolboy.' Is this truly how they > were treating him and if so, how does the condescension of the two > wizards relate to their ostensible leadership of opposition to the > Muggle-hating DEs? Is this condescension symptomatic of their rise > to power or a deeper problem within the wizarding community apart > from LV & co.? I'm not sure how to answer this question. The Prime Minister must really seem to them to be remarkably ignorant. Fudge is at least kindly toward him, and there are moments of what appear to be sympathy or empathy between them Scrimgeour is simply efficient and brusque. I think the mere fact that Fudge in particular feels a moral obligation to keep the Prime Minister informed indicates that there's no larger problem, unless you consider the International Statute of Secrecy a problem. They could easily have left the Prime Minister out of the loop altogether. > > 3. The PM appreciates why a fearful wizarding public would prefer > Scrimgeour to Fudge. What differences do we encounter between the > two? Besides the lime green bowler hat I've touched on this already. I think it's Scrimgeour's air of toughness and efficiency, as if he knows exactly what he's doing and is unafraid of what's facing him. Fudge, in contrast, twirls his bowler hat and looks uncomfortable. Whether the impression Scrimgeour creates matches his abilities remains to be seen. He certainly hasn't accomplished much (arresting Stan Shunpike!) and he's trying to use Harry as a propaganda tool, but at least he's not preventing the Daily Prophet from reporting what little is known of the actual events. I prefer Fudge, now that he's admitting the truth about Voldemort. He has tact and compassion, even if he is a bit condescending. But he lacks the strength to run a government during a war. BTW, Scrimgeour is mentioned somewhere in OoP. I think he was asking Tonks and Shacklebolt "funny questions." Anyone know the reference? Evidently he suspected that the Order was forming again or that they were hiding Sirius Black. Those problems appear to have been squared away, now that Shacklebolt is acting as a sort of liaison to the Muggles. Or have they? > > > > 5. Fudge says the dementors are breeding, which is causing the > gloomy weather throughout England. We know prior to this the > dementors were guarding Azkaban and working with the Ministry, yet > there was no chilly mist covering the land until now. Why weren't > they breeding before? Ministry controls? An agreement? Evidently the MoM had some degree of control over them and they were confined to Azkaban. Voldemort has evidently given them new privileges--or even free rein. > > 6. Is "Serious" Black now officially innocent? Fudge says there's going to be an inquiry, and we know from chapter 3 that Sirius's will has been proved (is that the right word?). Whether the information regarding his innocence has been made public is unclear. It strikes me as odd that Fudge didn't identify the real Muggle murderer, Wormtail, but maybe he doesn't see PP as a threat. Question: JKR twice puts "Serious" (Black) in quotation marks in this chapter. Is she doing that to indicate that this is how the PM thinks it's spelled (like "Kwidditch" for Quidditch)? Or is "Serious" not the correct pronunciation for Sirius (which means I've been mispronouncing it all this time)? > > 7. Scrimgeour performs an overt display of magic merely to keep his > statement to the PM that Kingsley Shacklebolt, likely as not the > only person nearby anyhow, is a wizard from being overheard. Then > he leaves. Fudge, on the other hand takes no precautions whatsoever > and then blurts out intimate knowledge of the WW. Is the > Shacklebolt information somehow more sensitive than everything Fudge > said? Is Scrimgeour protecting this information from Muggles, Death > Eaters, or both? I think the locked door and plugged keyhole simply represents scrimgeour's instinctive caution. He's not as paranoid as Mad-Eye Moody, but his experience as an Auror has taught him to be careful--and after all, if a Muggle overheard, he'd have to have his memory modified. Fudge, never having been an auror, doesn't think that way. One of his first actions on his first visit is to transform the PM's teacup into a gerbil to prove that he really is a wizard and the visit is not a hoax. He's essentially a diplomat; Scrimgeour is essentially a tough-minded police captain. I don't think he's worried about DEs overhearing or looking through the window, but he doesn't want to openly violate the Statute of Secrecy. (Just my view at the moment. I'm perfectly willing to see it from a different perspective.) > > 8. Who might have cast the poorly performed Imperius Curse? What > makes the curse poorly performed? Was it just sloppy magic, or > function similarly to the other Unforgivables in that you really > have to mean it for it to be successful? No idea, sorry. Unless that's why Stan Shunpike was arrested! ;-) Carol, apologizing for the lengthy answer and hoping that one or two people will read it From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 19 02:10:27 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:10:27 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? /What does Dumbledore wanted on the Tower? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141823 houyhnhnm: > > But if it was what Dumbledore wanted--for Harry to be saved even > > at the sacrifice of his own life--then what Snape did wasn't > > murder. This point has been argued over and over and it doesn't > > seem to make any impression whatsoever. Alla: > Well, the point that Dumbledore would not ask anyone to risk their > soul in order to help out in his sacrifice also had been argued > over and over and it also does not make any impression whatsoever. > Maybe because those points are at the heart of the opposing > Snape's interpretations and they are bound not to make any > impressions untill JKR says so? :-) > I prefer to see Dumbledore as someone who would not take a risk of > destroying the soul of another human being, even at the time of > war, even if that human being soul was already hurt before. SSSusan: Yep, I think many of us feel we have done our best to explain our views, seemingly without making any impression whatsoever on the opposing camp(s). I know that the other day, I presented this argument http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141611 : >>>Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he believes to be the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for either Harry to kill Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry. He confirms this to Harry in OoP, and he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell Harry, "Gee, I hate that you have to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!" In *my* mind, I could easily see the reason that DD does not say such a thing to Harry (even when the topic is right there before them as they talk about horcruxes!) as that he knows this is WAR, this is an issue of The Greater Good. And perhaps he knows or suspects that this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul. Or perhaps, OTOH, DD knows that it will rip Harry's soul, but he believes that it's WORTH it.<<< SSSusan again now: I mean, to me, this just screams "DD *does* believe there are times when one must kill." Whether he believes that not all killing rips the soul *or* that sometimes ripping the soul is necessary or worth it, I can't yet say, but it seems clear to me. Yet I also respect the fact that for other list members, they cannot reconcile a DD who would ask or command another to kill with the DD they believe they know. No easy solution to this, I fear. This is one of those topics which seems, to me, to simply divide us. Very few people, imho, are going to be convinced by an argument on either side. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 02:14:07 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:14:07 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141824 > Carol responds: > Once again, the quote that you so kindly supplied: > > "Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the strange angle of his arms > and legs, he might have been sleeping. Harry reached out, straightened > the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of > blood from the mouth with his own sleeve. Then he gazed down at the > wise old face and tried to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible > truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again > could he help..." > > Once again, Dumbledore looks as if he's asleep (if Harry ignores his > position and looks only at his face). Harry straightens Dumbledore's > spectacles and gazes into his "wise old face." (Fact, right, with no > interpretation or speculation?) > > I interpret this evidence to mean that Dumbledore looks like > Dumbledore with no notable change in his "wise old face" except that > his eyes are closed, in marked contrast to Cedric, whose "open gray > eyes [were] blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted > house" (GoF Am. ed. 638). Imagine Harry gazing into DD's face if the > once twinkling blue eyes stared back at him, expressionless and empty > rather than closed, with their presumed blankness concealed. Surely he > would react as he did with Cedric, feeling only horror, not the gentle > impulse to straighten DD's glasses. Dumbledore does not look either > surprised (like Cedric) or terrified (like the Riddles), all of whom > died instantly and none of whom had time to close their eyes. (That's > the way an Avada Kedavra works, from what we've seen.) > Neri: I agree with all of that. I never said Dumbledore's eyes were open and expressionless. It *is* canon that they were closed. A main difference between canon and interpretation is that the interpretation depends on our (frequently tacit) assumption as to the message or the point that the author was trying to make. Here, for example, you assume that the message was Dumbledore's expression and other "clues" regarding his body, because this would fit with your theory, and therefore you are trying to solve these clues and decode Dumbledore's expression from JKR's words. But it is a possibility that the author's message here was actually different, and that Dumbledore's exact expression wasn't even very relevant to it. If you read this whole paragraph again, you'll see that it talks about Harry trying "to absorb the enormous and incomprehensible truth: that never again would Dumbledore speak to him, never again could he help...". If the real message of the paragraph is Harry trying to absorb the terrible reality of Dumbledore's death, then Dumbledore looking as if he's asleep, or the blood trickling from his mouth, or the strange angle of his arms and legs, his skewed spectacles, are all mentioned *not* because they are clues in a mystery, but because they give Harry and the reader conflicting and wrenching impressions as to Dumbledore being dead or alive. For this it would be important that his eyes are closed and he appears asleep, and his "wise old face" would be important to recall his personality and his emotional significance to Harry, but it wouldn't actually of much importance if his expression is peaceful or not, and this is why it isn't described. IOW, maybe this whole paragraph is about Harry, not about Dumbledore. The advantage of keeping the canon handy is that you don't discard such alternative possibilities without even noticing. > Carol: > I think we can at least say without contradiction that DD's "wise old > face" is *composed*, especially if paired with the *canonical* > peaceful expression in the portrait, which is also sleeping, and > contrasted with those of the known AK victims. > Neri: Pairing the real Dumbledore's expression with the expression of his portrait might be very misleading. JKR told us in the Edinburgh interview http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm that magical portraits aren't the real people and they aren't even ghosts. They retain the general "aura" of the person and they "repeat catchphrases", but they apparently don't remember the last moments of their lives, which is why Dumbledore's portrait would be "peaceful and untroubled". He may be sleeping just because the headmasters' portraits are usually asleep (or pretending to be) when you enter this room, and probably because a talk with Dumbledore's portrait simply wasn't on JKR's menu for the present book. > Carol: > It is reasonable to examine the evidence and hypothesize on the basis > of it. That, I believe, is what we do on this list. (I, for one, > haven't forgotten that Narcissa's tears canonically splashing onto > Snape's chest led to ACID POPS. :-) ) > Neri: Of course this is what we do in this list, which is *precisely* why it is important to protect our evidence from being contaminated by the hypotheses. And I thank you for demonstrating how I try to do it in my own posts. ACID POPS is indeed a theory, an interpretation, a collection of hypotheses, and I was never shy about this. But Narcissa's tears splashing on Snape's chest *is* most definitely canon. I find the adverb "canonically" useful in communicating the difference between canon and interpretation in my posts. > Carol, who considers the "peaceful expression" *semi*canonical, but > will try to remember to say "DD's apparently composed expression" in > future > Neri: Why not simply use "DD appearing asleep"? It's shorter, and it's canon. Neri From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 03:04:06 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:04:06 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141825 > >>Nora: > The note that I overwhelmingly read of Snape towards Harry is, > regardless of whether his actions (can be read to be) beneficial or > vindictive, is "you are a little shit, I have an accurate > estimation of who and what you are, and you are not special." Betsy Hp: The problem is that Snape often catches Harry when he's being a little shit. So of course there are those types of interactions. However, that's not the only note Snape hits. Snape tried, very hard, to be civil during the Occlumency lessons. Harry did not. However, Snape answered the questions Harry asked, to the best of his ability. In fact, he told Harry far more than any other adult. But it's not the only note Snape displays. It's the only note Harry expects of Snape, and so it's generally the only note Harry accepts as genuine. But Harry, as usual when it comes to Snape, is wrong. > >>Nora: > Special emphasis on how much Snape thinks he's right on #2, which > he tends to think about most people and things: > Betsy Hp: How do you figure that? > >>Nora: > I'd agree that Harry has a rather limited perspective on Snape, > although I'd still think it would be absolutely hilarious if > Harry's suspicions turned out to be fundamentally correct, finally. Betsy Hp: Well I know I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be more worried about that scenario if Slytherin was the house of evil so many had predicted it would be. Thank goodness JKR nipped that particular theory in the bud! So I'm hoping she's going in the direction of snap judgements and prejudicial thinking is not the best way to go. Or the whole fear of outsiders that so drives the WW. > >>Nora: > But Snape is probably misreading Harry, as well. Betsy Hp: But Snape is so often right about Harry. It drives Harry crazy because Snape is one of the few adults to treat him like a naughty little boy when he's behaving like a naughty little boy. (I loved it when Dumbledore *finally* made Harry take a bit of responsibility.) > >>Nora: > He *does* continually harp upon James > Betsy Hp: He doesn't actually. I brought this up before in post #140547. Here's the relevant bit: "Snape brings James up once in PoA (and I've given my theory on that ). He says nothing about James throughout GoF that I could find. He brings James up twice, that I found, in OotP. The first time the insult was aimed directly at Sirius (Harry ignored it, caught up as he was in Sirius's anger). The second time was when he caught Harry in his pensieve and I think that was pure anger rather than a need to hurt Harry. And then there were the two times in HBP." So that's five times in six years. And one of those times had nothing to do with Harry, really. I wouldn't define that as harping on James. (Is this another example of theory building into canon that Neri pointed out earlier? ) > >>Nora: > even Dumbledore has commented upon Snape's relationship to Harry > being continually inflected by that. [And here I thought you DDM! > theorists believed in Dumbledore no matter what he said.] Betsy Hp: I guess you thought wrong. I don't take everything Dumbledore says or does as from on high. I think Dumbledore talking about the life debt in PS/SS did Snape's and Harry's relationship no favors. (Actually, I think his handling of those two was probably his biggest mistake.) I'm sure he was just trying to help keep Snape's cover, but I think he should have gone a bit more generic at that moment. Maybe used Alla's "any teacher would have done the same" argument. > >>Nora: > Is there any appreciation for Harry's sterling qualities, which all > the rest of the professoriate seem to pick up on? Anything like > the love and comraderie shared with Dumbledore? Grudging at best, > malicious at worst. Betsy Hp: Harry can be a charming boy, if he decides you're one of his. Hagrid benefits from this, and Dumbledore sees it displayed. But when he's not sure of you he's fairly withdrawn. There's a reason all of Hufflepuff decided he was evil in CoS. There's a reason so many of the student body were suspicious of his part in the death of Cedric Diggory. Honestly, I'm not sure how the rest of the teaching staff see Harry. He's not the worlds best student, and other than DADA he doesn't really push himself. He is polite and fairly deferential (unless he decides you're not one of his) so I'm sure he doesn't give them any problems in class. But this is not the Harry Snape gets to meet. Instead he gets the defiant, disrespectful, foolish risk taker. So he treats Harry accordingly. It's kind of a vicious cycle, actually. And therein lies the tragedy, IMO. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Within the Potterverse, however, Snape is one of the more complex > > characters. > >>Nora: > I'd say potentially complex, because as I've harped on before, > Snape's complexity--being based on withholds--is the kind that can > be collapsed with a few revelations. For instance, say that he > *is* ESE: he's not nearly as complex then, is he, because > his 'conversion' was not sincere. Betsy Hp: And as I've harped many times before, it's *not* all based on withholds. If Snape *is* ESE than his willingness to do anything for his Master is a complexity in and of itself. He helped kill two of Voldemort's better servants. Anything for his cover? That's pretty cold-blooded and ruthless right there. He managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the most powerful wizard in a century, which also speaks to an unbelivable amount of power. And he got himself free reign to poke around in the "Chosen One's" head. The cunning on display is amazing. And all this while openingly showing his contempt for the WW's great hero. Snape would be the best children's book villain ever. > >>Nora: > Or say that we find out he's had one major motivating reason for > everything he's done. Less complex, in an instant...like how a > fraction reduces down. Betsy Hp: And again, I disagree. For one reason (and it would need to be a powerful one) Snape chooses to leave the winning side made up of his friends and join the loosing side made up of his enemies. He endures what he endures (and to spy on Voldemort would not be easy) in order for right to prevail. This is actually the Snape that I see, and he is complex. Especially if he is still friends with some of his enemies (see the Malfoys). > >>Betsy Hp: > > Within the Harry/Snape relationship the problem, IMO, has always > > been Harry. It's Harry who needs to change his view of Snape, > > not the other way around. > >>Nora: > I think at minimum it's mutual. Snape has certainly shown minimal > signs of any kind of flexibility and adaptation in his views of > Harry. Betsy Hp: Again (surprise! ) I disagree. Snape made an effort with the Occlumency lessons. Harry made no effort at all. Snape took Harry's hint about Sirius in Umbridge's office. Snape followed through, Harry did not. I'm sure Snape noticed Harry's lack of effort, which leads into.... > >>Nora: > I find it hard to imagine that Snape has/could have the kind > of faith in Harry that Dumbledore had, for instance. Betsy Hp: Oh, I agree. I think Snape probably deviled Dumbledore like mad about the stupidity and recklessness of his special little Gryffindor. And I'm sure Dumbledore was quite amused for the most part and also probably brought the law down a time or two when he felt it necessary. > >>Nora: > Do any of us (especially you folks who rely so heavily upon > Dumbledore's judgement) think that DD is wrong in this? If he's > not wrong, doesn't Snape need to change his view of Harry and > embrace him as the agent of Voldemort's downfall? Betsy Hp: Snape does work with Harry. I think part of the reason he catches Harry in wrong doing so often is because he's ghosting around the castle trying to keep Harry safe from what ever baddie is out to get the boy. And I think part of the reason he gets so frustrated with Harry is that *this* is the kid who's supposed to bring down the Dark Lord and he can't even put a simple potion together, can't even follow basic rules of safety, doesn't even try with Occlumency, and won't bother mastering a non-verbal spell. If Harry is this much of an idiot (and Snape does catch him in some stunning moments of idiocy) it's no wonder Snape rides him so hard. For Snape that *is* embracing Harry as the agent of Voldemort's downfall. Betsy Hp From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 03:26:42 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:26:42 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >> Nora: >> Special emphasis on how much Snape thinks he's right on #2, >> which he tends to think about most people and things: > > > > Betsy Hp: > How do you figure that? That's defined the Harry and Snape dynamic from the beginning, starting from "Harry Potter, our newest celebrity". What is that if not an assumption, resistant to revision? It's also the thematic flaw in Snape's character in the Shrieking Shack: when he has Black and Lupin at his mercy, Hermione (the voice of reason and logic) begs him that it wouldn't hurt just to listen, but Snape shoots back at her that she's a 'silly girl' and doesn't understand. I think that's readable as conviction in his rightness. A pity it's wrong. Or one thinks of how quickly he jumps to the argument that Harry *must* have put his own name in the Goblet. Snape's a terrier in many regards; he holds to some things past sensibility and without examination. > Betsy Hp: > He doesn't actually. I brought this up before in post #140547. > Here's the relevant bit: > > "Snape brings James up once in PoA (and I've given my theory on that > ). He says nothing about James throughout GoF that I could > find. He brings James up twice, that I found, in OotP. The first > time the insult was aimed directly at Sirius (Harry ignored it, > caught up as he was in Sirius's anger). The second time was when he > caught Harry in his pensieve and I think that was pure anger rather > than a need to hurt Harry. And then there were the two times in > HBP." Ah, but look at the placement of these things, and how they knot into a thread. James is always brought up in a negative sense, sometimes as the bad role model who Harry is just like, and sometimes as Snape's own inferior. But really, when JKR has Snape screaming about James as Harry's 'filthy father' in the middle of such a heated confrontation, what are we *supposed* to think? Things that come up in anger are things that still bother people, are still meaningful to them. James may be dead, but Snape ain't never gotten over that he is. In most of those examples, Snape is the one who brings James into the equation in the first place. > Betsy Hp: > I guess you thought wrong. I don't take everything Dumbledore > says or does as from on high. Only when it's utterly essential to believe him without question to bolster support for a character? :) > I think Dumbledore talking about the life debt in PS/SS did Snape's > and Harry's relationship no favors. (Actually, I think his > handling of those two was probably his biggest mistake.) I'm sure > he was just trying to help keep Snape's cover, but I think he > should have gone a bit more generic at that moment. Maybe used > Alla's "any teacher would have done the same" argument. But what if it's true, and Dumbledore is simply stating it as it is? > Snape would be the best children's book villain ever. Don't count it out, yet. :) [It has a nice symmetricality to it, now that I think of it; cleared in the first book, convicted in the last. Appealing on aesthetic grounds, but not an argument for anything.] > Betsy Hp: > Again (surprise! ) I disagree. Snape made an effort with the > Occlumency lessons. Harry made no effort at all. God knows I don't want to get into the Occlumency discussion again, but 'no effort at all' is absolutely not supported by canon. We have Harry trying, asking some pointed questions about method and lack of clear instruction therein, becoming frustrated and hurting, and then giving up. 'No effort at all' is just not true. -Nora will look up things if it becomes necessary in the morning. Or maybe someone else can do it, who has a fine and accurate eye for canon... From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 19 03:53:06 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:53:06 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141827 > > Betsy Hp: > > And which note would that be? The one where he disciplines Harry > > whenever he catches him in wrongdoing? The one where he saves > > Harry's life whenever he's around when Harry's life is in > > jeopardy? The one where he tries to help Harry keep Voldemort out > > of his head? The one where he takes great pleasure in badmouthing > > Harry's father? > Nora: > The note that I overwhelmingly read of Snape towards Harry is, > regardless of whether his actions (can be read to be) beneficial or > vindictive, is "you are a little shit, I have an accurate estimation > of who and what you are, and you are not special." Special emphasis > on how much Snape thinks he's right on #2, which he tends to think > about most people and things: Valky: #2 is the note I overwhelming read of Snape towards everyone in all the books, so I agree with Nora here. It is Snape's largest obstacle to change and redemption if there is to be any for him too, hence why I agree with Alla that Snape on the verge of apologetic, remorseful, and even slightly pathetic is something we should look forward to. Basically, I am saying that Snape really must be open to correction of number #2, and Harry has always been the perfect candidate for that to happen to him. It cannot be argued from canon that Snape *does* have the measure of Harry, I admire Nora's elegant argument for the contrary upthread and agree with it wholeheartededly. OTOH I must admit thinking after HBP that Snape can be interpreted as having found it much harder to turn a blind eye to Harry's sterling qualities after having known him now for 5 years, and I can imagine this being a confronting situation for Snape and amusing for Dumbledore, but a lot of that is my preferential read of the facts. I don't think Snape has to essentially let go of #1 or #3 of the above, they are not deep marks in the rite of Harry and Snape, Harry after all can continue to think Snape is a bitter horrible git even while he forgives or realises that Snape is innocent where he may have seemed guilty, and Snape can certainly continue to believe that Harry is not special, this is not the deepest issue for Harry at all. But Snape has been proven wrong about his certainty that he knows what Harry is made of, Snape was also wrong about James on this count, and it is this issue with Snape and James that even Dumbledore tells Harry is the one that Snape 'could never forgive'. Dumbledore actually says this twice in the books, he says it again in HBP, Hermione recounts him saying, that people find it harder to forgive others for being right, than wrong. The way I see it, Harry is Snapes second turn on the wheel of humility and self correction, it's seems to me that both will be facing the same isuue that Snape faced after James had rescued him from the Werewolf. Harry for his first time reevaluating his judgement of Snape and Snape his judgement of a Potter for the second time. It seems only fair to Snape and Dumbledore to say that Snape might get it right this time round. We already know that Harry will, as it is a definite part of his journey to do so. So back to the point of Snape being dynamic or one note, I have to say that we can demonstrate even dynamic characters will sing the same tune on 2 out of three levels, but Snape does have One dynamic level within Nora's concise summary which is fairly obvious to me. And it is this one fluid aspect of his character which turns him from flat to dimensional IMO. Nora: > I'd agree that Harry has a > rather limited perspective on Snape, although I'd still think it > would be absolutely hilarious if Harry's suspicions turned out to be > fundamentally correct, finally. Valky: I am just curious here Nora, because I would like for Harry to find himself surprisingly accurate on Snape too, I would like to know if you are percieving more than one way this revelation could occur or do you only concieve of the tower events as the way which could prove Harry just in his measure? >Nora: > I'd say potentially complex, because as I've harped on before, > Snape's complexity--being based on withholds--is the kind that can > be collapsed with a few revelations. For instance, say that he *is* > ESE: he's not nearly as complex then, is he, because his > 'conversion' was not sincere. Or say that we find out he's had one > major motivating reason for everything he's done. Less complex, in > an instant...like how a fraction reduces down. Valky: I see that argument, Nora, and raise you a common denominator that could equally collapse much of the potential mystery - Lily. The nuisance is, there's more than one method of skinning the Fox. We have speculated since book three that Lily could drop the mystery man where he stands and replace him with pathetic and remorseful candidate for redemption in a heartbeat. It's not new, and worst of all, loads of the speculative material built into that ship has since been proven in more recent books. For example Snape is the Hogshead eavesdropper, and Snape left the DE's remorseful for the people he knew from school becoming the target of Voldemort by his doing. I always hated the Lollipops, believe me, as a hypothesis I thought it was biased, oversimplified and ugly ugly ugly. But I can do what Snape cannot. When I see the other party is right, I can still hate it, and I can still think it's not anything special, but I will embrace it. Valky Glancing up at the Snapeophiles and Lollipop Shippers apprehensively. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 03:59:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:59:12 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic?/Snape's dynamics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141828 Nora: > Ah, but look at the placement of these things, and how they knot into > a thread. James is always brought up in a negative sense, sometimes > as the bad role model who Harry is just like, and sometimes as > Snape's own inferior. But really, when JKR has Snape screaming about > James as Harry's 'filthy father' in the middle of such a heated > confrontation, what are we *supposed* to think? Alla: You know, I think it also shows perfectly that Snape has a bone to pick not just with James, but with Harry also "And you'd turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you?" - p.604. Snape resents Harry precisely because he thinks Harry is doing what James would have done. Come to think of it, besides the fact that Snape screams here "I, the Half Blood Prince", ( just as you, I find that line to be incredibly pathetic - grown man is still proud of his childhood nickname - I think the parallel with Voldemort is the strongest here)), what bothered me tremendously was "filthy father". "Filthy mudblood", anybody? but I cannot figure out why he would call James filthy, since he is a pureblood? I don't think that Snape had any control of his emotions here, so I think that is what he tuly thinks of James, but why filthy? > > Betsy Hp: > > I guess you thought wrong. I don't take everything Dumbledore > > says or does as from on high. Alla: YES! Would you agree with questioning " I trust Severus Snape" line then? Betsy: > > I think Dumbledore talking about the life debt in PS/SS did Snape's > > and Harry's relationship no favors. (Actually, I think his > > handling of those two was probably his biggest mistake.) I'm sure > > he was just trying to help keep Snape's cover, but I think he > > should have gone a bit more generic at that moment. Maybe used > > Alla's "any teacher would have done the same" argument. Nora: > But what if it's true, and Dumbledore is simply stating it as it is? Alla: Oh, Betsy, I don't hold that against Dumbledore at all :) - I am equally fond of we don't know how " life debt " works argument, which in essense supports what Nora said. Who knows, maybe till Snape's life debt is not paid , Snape was having nightmares every night with James and Lily's spirits coming to hunt him ( I SO want to see ANY of the spirits to do that to Snape, Dumbledore would do just fine as I mentioned earlier, but as Jen remarked he is probably too forgiving for that), OR maybe Snape is suffering physical pains in some parts of his body till debt is not fulfilled or something like that. So, yeah, I think Dumbledore just stated it as it is - Snape did it in order to be able to hate Jame's memory in peace ( paraphrase) or because any teacher SHOULD have done it as part of job description. :-0 JMO, Alla From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 03:28:16 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:28:16 -0000 Subject: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141829 One matter that has bothered me somewhat throughout the series of Harry books, and more so since the release of HBP is Professor Snape's hankering after the DADA job. I do not agree with speculation regarding this position as being some kind of addiction for Snape, rather I believe that Snape may not have wanted the position until the time was right or at all. There are a large number of references in the books and various interviews with JKR that relate to the DADA job and Snape's stance to it. This article would address the majority of these and set out my view that Snape, far from craving the job, was actually reluctant to do it. My references for the books are Bloomsbury paperback editions of books 1-3 and Bloomsbury hardback editions of books 4-6. Any reference to interviews would be noted after the quotation. The matters are in some kind of chronological order. The first relevant matter to my theory is contained in HBP, Chapter Twenty ? Lord Voldemort's Request, page 418: "You see, we have never been able to keep a Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher for longer than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort." Dumbledore says this to Harry after the sequence viewed by them in the Pensieve. It is based on Dumbledore's own memory and I postulate that Dumbledore figured out that he could not keep a DADA teacher for more than a year within a short time of his interview with LV. Why then would Dumbledore give the job to a useful man like Snape? Clearly Snape, despite his faults, is a competent and able teacher and is particularly gifted at Potions as indicated by his identity as the Half-Blood Prince. Dumbledore as an intelligent man would have wanted Snape to remain at Hogwarts for longer than one year. It is also worthy of note that Dumbledore did not believe Voldemort was finished and he would, therefore, want to maintain one of his most useful spies in case LV returned as we know he subsequently did. When JKR was asked as long ago as 1999, prior even to the release of GOF regarding Snape in The Connection (WBUR Radio), 12 October, 1999 she had this to say: "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4." I have been taking this advice seriously and keeping an eye on Snape. The matter we discover about Snape during GOF is, I believe, simply that he was a Death Eater. Almost immediately after the release of Book 5 a further question was asked regarding Snape (Q & A quoted in full below) during the Royal Albert Hall Interview ? 26th June 2003 `Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher. In book five he doesn't get the job. Why doesn't Professor Dumbledore let him be the DADA teacher? JK Rowling: That is an excellent question and the reason is I have to be careful not to say too much. However, when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape onto the staff and Professor Snape said he'd like to teach Defence Against the Dark Arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that it might bring out the worst in Professor Snape, so Dumbledore said: "I think we'll let you teach potions and see how you get along there."' The question suggests that the questioner believed Snape always wanted the job. I disagree with the questioner as I am sure that Dumbledore would have mentioned to Snape that he could not keep a DADA teacher for more than a year and other than just thinking that the position would bring out the worst in Snape, as it possibly did, he would have persuaded Snape to accept the Potions position or Snape may have actually wanted the Potions job. This position is, after all, one at which Snape excels and Dumbledore would know that Snape was a marvelous potioneer. It should be remembered also that this was said well in advance of HBP and at that point there was no information that the position had been cursed by LV so obviously, being cagey, as she most usually is, JKR would not want to specify the reason that Snape did not get the DADA position too clearly. Our first indication in canon regarding Snape and the DADA position comes from Percy, of all people (a fifth year at the time), in PS, Chapter Seven ? The Sorting Hat, page 94: "He takes Potions, but he doesn't want to ? everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. Knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts, Snape." (Percy to Harry) Everyone knows Snape is after the DADA position do they? A carefully disguised ruse in my opinion to cover the fact that Snape actually is content to be the Potions Master. Further exposition follows. Our first formal introduction to Snape, other than the red herring of Harry's scar prickling when Snape looks at him is in Chapter Eight. This is headed "The Potions Master", not the DADA wannabe or some such but the Potions Master. Incidentally in GOF when Barty Jnr. refers to Snape he calls him the Potions Master also. This fits with my view that Snape is content to be in the position he held and possibly was even aware that Dumbledore knew of LV's curse on the job Snape supposedly coveted. I will not go into what a supreme potioneer Snape is here as this has been adequately covered elsewhere in the forum. Up to the end of the first book then we have no indication to disprove that Snape longed for the DADA position, however this position changes into line with my theory in CoS. As we all know Gilderoy Lockhart is appointed as the DADA teacher in book 2, but why would this be if Snape, a seemingly more suitable candidate, was constantly applying for the job? As Hagrid says about Lockhart in Chapter Seven ? Mudbloods and Murmurs, page 88: "He was the on'y man for the job" If this is true, and perhaps Hagrid's expostulations should be taken with a pinch of salt, then Snape could not have applied for the DADA job for Harry's second year. Apparently only Lockhart applied. Not long after this Snape himself says to Lockhart (Chapter Nine ? The Writing on the Wall, page 110: "Excuse me" said Snape icily, "but I believe I am the Potions Master at this school." This is after Lockhart says he could make the Mandrake Restorative Draught for Mrs. Norris. Snape himself seems proud at this point that he is the Potions Master and able to remedy a condition through his skill in Potions. It is not reflective of Snape envying Lockhart his position as DADA teacher, although quite likely Snape is aware that Gilderoy is incompetent. In Chapter Eleven ? The Duelling Club, page 142 some further author misdirection is thrown at us where the following is found: `Snape's upper lip was curling. Harry wondered why Lockhart was still smiling; if Snape had been looking at him like that he'd have been running as fast as he could in the opposite direction.' I understand from this that we are supposed to believe that Snape is acting as he does because he is envious of Gilderoy's position as DADA teacher. An equally plausible explanation is that Snape is well aware of Gilderoy's incompetence and is looking forward to humiliating him in front of the entire school body. Once Gilderoy has lost his memory it becomes clear that a new DADA teacher will be required for the third year and in Chapter Eighteen ? Dobby's Reward, page 246 Dumbledore says: "We'll be needing a new Defence Against the dark Arts teacher. Dear me, we do seem to run through them, don't we?" This, I contend, is further authorial misdirection to deflect readers at that point from wondering why the DADA teacher not only lasts for one year at a time but also why Snape is not appointed earlier. The first indication that we are handed that there is more to the DADA position than we may have initially suspected comes in POA, Chapter Five ? The Dementor, page 60: `There were rumours that the job was jinxed.' This is given as a throw away line but with what we now know is very pertinent indeed. These rumours turn out to be true and would support my supposition that Dumbledore did not want to give the job to Snape because of the jinx / curse rather than for any other reason so that Snape could remain in place. *A thought occurs* - perhaps Dumbledore did not entirely trust Snape and wanted him at Hogwarts to keep an eye on him and ensure that he did not go looking for and reviving LV, therefore a further reason Snape was not given the DADA job earlier. I digress. In the same Chapter at page 72 further emphasis is put on Snape's known proclivity for the DADA post while Snape is looking at Lupin: `It was common knowledge that Snape wanted the Defence Against the Dark Arts job, but even Harry, who hated Snape, was startled at the expression twisting his thin, sallow face.' As I say I am now convinced that Snape did not want the DADA job, especially if Dumbledore had explained the implications to him. The twisted expression noted here is more probably due to Snape's continued bitterness regarding the werewolf caper than his disgust at not being appointed DADA teacher as we are supposed to believe. Speculation on the details of the werewolf caper are rife and I believe that James saved Snape only just before Lupin would have otherwise attacked. The life debt Snape has to James can not be convincingly explained in any other way. It would not be likely that James stopped Snape at an early point in his progress to the Shrieking Shack because then it could not be said that Snape owed his life to James as some other incident could have possibly have intervened to save Snape. Snape must have been proximate to death himself for him to owe his life to James. Reinforcement to the red herring regarding Snape hating Lupin because of the appointment as DADA teacher is found in Chapter Eight ? The Flight of the Fat lady, page 107 where we find: `Snape was in a particularly vindictive mood these days, and no one was in any doubt why His eyes flashed menacingly at the very mention of Professor Lupin's name, and he was bullying Neville worse than ever.' At this point Snape already suspects that Lupin is assisting Snape's nemesis Sirius to get into the castle. He goes so far as to voice this suspicion to Dumbledore in the Great Hall. More misdirection in other words and a bolster to my belief that Snape wanting the DADA job has been perhaps the ultimate red herring throughout the series so far. Moving on to GOF and Moody is now DADA teacher as a special favour to Dumbledore, at least he would have been if Barty Jnr. had not intervened. Yet again we are confronted with anomalous information. In Chapter Twelve ? The Triwizard Tournament, page 155 Hermione says: "Maybe they couldn't get anyone!" When it appears that no DADA teacher has been appointed, This conflicts somewhat with what we are led to believe everyone knows, that is that Snape wants the position. Why would an intelligent girl like Hermione say this when she supposedly knows Snape wants the position? It would be more natural if it were generally believed that Snape desperately wanted the DADA post to say: "Perhaps they finally appointed Snape" rather than what she does in fact say. Two chapters later in Chapter Fourteen ? The Unforgivable Curses, page 185: "You know why Snape's in such a foul mood, don't you?" "Yeah" said Harry "Moody." Still further misdirecting us on the DADA position. We are to believe that Snape is once again disappointed to have missed out to Moody. A more likely explanation of Snape's foul mood is twofold. One Moody has searched his office, about which he is far from cheerful and two he is annoyed that Harry continues to do all that is loathsome to Snape, for instance being picked for the Tournament. To backtrack a little, here is the reference to Snape by Barty Jnr. In Chapter Thirty ? Veritaserum, page 598: "When the Potions master found me in his office, I said I was under orders to search it." Again the Potions master reference. The etymology of the term is self-explanatory and I will not overly prolong this article by going into it any further. OotP is less easy to explain to fit into my theory, but here follows relevant quotes and my explanation of them. As we know Professor Umbridge is now the DADA teacher, but why, if Snape really wants the job? That is especially if the Ministry practically railroaded Dumbledore into accepting Dolores's appointment. But before that, back to Snape, who clearly is not expecting to be appointed DADA teacher, even in Harry's sixth year. The Potions master says in Chapter Twelve ? Professor Umbridge, page 209: "I take only the very best into my NEWT Potions class, which means that some of us will certainly be saying goodbye." Clearly he is not expecting Dumbledore to give him the DADA job at this point and is seemingly anticipating remaining as the Potions Master. We learn later on that Educational Decree number 22 basically forced Dumbledore into accepting Dolores, the relevant passage as quoted from The Daily Prophet is in Chapter Fifteen ? The Hogwarts High Inquisitor, page 275: `As recently as 30th August, Educational Decree Number 22 was passed, to ensure that, in the event of the current Headmaster being unable to provide a candidate for a teaching post, the Ministry should select an appropriate person.' In this circumstance we must query why Dumbledore did not give the job to Snape to circumvent the Decree's provisions. The logical explanation is that Snape did not want, neither did he apply for, the job. If he had then Dumbledore would almost certainly have accepted his application. Based on what can be inferred about Dumbledore he does not like outside interference in his school, most particularly from the Ministry. Alternatively it is a convoluted plot device and indubitably JKR knew from her plan of the seven books that Snape would be DADA teacher in Harry's sixth year. Another Flint then? However, at this point, and with the next quoted passage my speculation runs across a problem. The problematic passage is contained in Chapter Seventeen ? Educational Decree Number Twenty- Four at pages 323-4: `"You applied first for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post I believe?" Professor Umbridge asked Snape "Yes" said Snape quietly. "But you were unsuccessful? "Obviously." Professor Umbridge scribbled on her clipboard. "And you have applied regularly for the defence Against the Dark Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?" "Yes," said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. "Do you have any idea why Dumbledore has consistently refused to appoint you?" asked Umbridge. "I suggest you ask him."' Unless of course Snape is being less than honest and covering the real reason he has not become DADA teacher. As we know Snape follows orders and he would have to apply for the DADA post if LV wanted him to. Or did LV want him to? After all LV would know of his own curse on the position and only if he anticipated Snape staying only a year or he lifted the curse could Snape last beyond a year in the post. I contend that Snape is not being entirely truthful. The passage does not say, however, that Snape applied every year since he joined the staff, only that he has applied regularly. To have applied every year would be inconsistent with the matters noted in this article. Even to say he applied regularly is a bit of a stretch as clearly, from Harry's year 2 until his year 5 (four full years), Snape probably did not apply for the job. Finally we reach book 6 and Snape is appointed to the DADA job. We continue to be assured that Snape has craved the position for years. In Chapter Eight ? Snape Victorious on page 159 is says: `How could Snape be given the Defence Against the dark Arts job after all this time? Hadn't it been widely known for years that Dumbledore did not trust him to do it?' Sorry? It had been widely known for years that Dumbledore did not trust him to do it. Where exactly did this come from, if not the Royal Albert Hall Interview ? 26th June 2003 at which it was first mentioned by JKR. It seems like a little covering up to me and inconsistent with just about all other canon information. It is also through Harry's perspective and Harry tends to be a little blinkered where Snape is concerned. And this brings us back to the beginning of the article so it only remains for me to conclude. Snape did not want the DADA job and the contents of this article should also add fuel to the ongoing Snape controversy. Personally I think Snape is only out for himself, but in the matter of the DADA job he did not always want it and probably now regrets ever having been appointed to it. Goddlefrood From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 19 04:59:32 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:59:32 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141830 > > Nora: > > I'd say potentially complex, because as I've harped on before, > > Snape's complexity--being based on withholds--is the kind that > > can be collapsed with a few revelations. For instance, say that > > he *is* ESE: he's not nearly as complex then, is he, because > > his 'conversion' was not sincere. > Betsy Hp: > And as I've harped many times before, it's *not* all based on > withholds. Snape would be the best > children's book villain ever {if ESE}. > > Nora: > > Or say that we find out he's had one major motivating reason for > > everything he's done. Less complex, in an instant...like how a > > fraction reduces down. Jen: I'm getting confused here and wanted to sort something out, something bothering me as we near the end. I get Nora's point that Snape may seem more complex than he is because of what JKR witholds, and also Betsy's point, that Snape will still be considered a complex character once any outstanding mysteries are resolved. I've just started to wonder if those of us who have read the series from the beginning and traced our clues, and speculated our theories will actually be the best judge once everything is said and done? I like reading the series this way obviously, but am also a bit bothered that I'll never be able to read all the books in succesion and really *hear* the story JKR said she felt compelled to write. Instead I'll hear the voices of all of us and our theories intermixed with JKR's intentions, little voices in my head reminding me I'm too biased or too emotionally attached or too whatever my weakness is! My point is not to stop this debate at all, just very curious how a person born now will see these characters, how the literary world will view JKR's work when we finally reach the other side. As for Snape, somehow I suspect he'll end up a little less complex when the cards are on the table, but only because the mystery is solved. Not because JKR wasn't attempting to form a complex character. If asked, I seriously doubt she would say Snape was intended to be flat or one-note or whatever, he is one of her main characters after all and as she said in that TLC/MN interview, "Well, okay, I'm obviously ? Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort." Here's the point where I'll be told the author's intention counts for nothing , but so far I've been able to square my view of Potterverse with what JKR feeds me, and expect to do that after Book 7 as well. Er....well, ESE!Lupin aside. Optimistic!Jen From Nanagose at aol.com Wed Oct 19 05:12:20 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:12:20 -0000 Subject: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141831 Goddlefrood: > The first > relevant matter to my theory is contained in HBP, Chapter Twenty ? > Lord Voldemort's Request, page 418: > > "You see, we have never been able to keep a Defence Against the Dark > Arts teacher for longer than a year since I refused the post to Lord > Voldemort." > > Dumbledore says this to Harry after the sequence viewed by them in > the Pensieve. It is based on Dumbledore's own memory and I postulate > that Dumbledore figured out that he could not keep a DADA teacher > for more than a year within a short time of his interview with LV. > Why then would Dumbledore give the job to a useful man like Snape? Christina: Well, this is obviously a hugely speculated question, but I suspect Dumbledore did it for a variety of reasons. For one, there was simply *nobody* left to do the job, which is bad for both logistic reasons (*somebody* has to teach), and for practical reasons. The WW is in a state of war. The children MUST learn to defend themselves. Regardless of whether you love Snape or hate him, he's *good* at teaching DADA. Secondly, there is the Slughorn issue. Now some have speculated that there's more going on with Slughorn than we know, but at the very least, Dumbledore felt that he needed Slughorn's horcrux memory. Slughorn teaches Potions. A little faculty-shuffle vacated the position so Dumbledore could give it to Slughorn. Goddlefrood: > I have been taking this advice seriously and keeping an eye on > Snape. The matter we discover about Snape during GOF is, I believe, > simply that he was a Death Eater. Christina: I actually thought the surprise was Snape's spy status- after all, who was *really* that shocked to find out that Snape was a former Death Eater (it surely fits well with the Slytherin stereotype...and we know Snape is particularly buddy-buddy with Malfoy, who we find out has a baddie for a daddy in CoS)? But I digress... Goddlefrood: > As we all know > Gilderoy Lockhart is appointed as the DADA teacher in book 2, but > why would this be if Snape, a seemingly more suitable candidate, was > constantly applying for the job? ...snip.... > As we know Professor > Umbridge is now the DADA teacher, but why, if Snape really wants the > job? ...snip... > In this circumstance we must query why Dumbledore did not give the > job to Snape to circumvent the Decree's provisions. The logical > explanation is that Snape did not want, neither did he apply for, > the job. Christina: Like you said- Dumbledore knows that LV isn't gone for good and will need Snape in the future. He can't sacrifice him now. And as a little side note: yes, Hagrid's expostulations *should* be taken with a pinch of salt. Isn't this the same person who claimed that all of the Dark witches and wizards came from Slytherin (when one of the most well-known prisoners and supposed DEs of the time period, Sirius Black, was Gryffindor through and through)? Goddlefrood: > Based on what can be inferred about > Dumbledore he does not like outside interference in his school, most > particularly from the Ministry. Christina: This is true. Dumbledore likes to have "his people" handle things. Two of his allies come to teach DADA (Lupin and Moody...or at least that was the original plan). It would seem logical to have Snape teach, too; however, the spy problem pops up again. We know that in VWI, Dumbledore had "a number of useful spies," but there is nothing that suggests that this is the case now. It seems pretty clear that Snape is the only man Dumbledore has on the inside (not taking into account his spies in the Ministry). Goddlefrood: > However, at this point, and with the next quoted passage my > speculation runs across a problem. The problematic passage is > contained in Chapter Seventeen ? Educational Decree Number Twenty- > Four at pages 323-4: > > `"You applied first for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post I > believe?" Professor Umbridge asked Snape > "Yes" said Snape quietly. > "But you were unsuccessful? > "Obviously." > Professor Umbridge scribbled on her clipboard. > "And you have applied regularly for the defence Against the Dark > Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?" > "Yes," said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very > angry. > "Do you have any idea why Dumbledore has consistently refused to > appoint you?" asked Umbridge. > "I suggest you ask him."' > > Unless of course Snape is being less than honest and covering the > real reason he has not become DADA teacher. Christina: See, this is what seals it for me. Yes, having Snape covet the DADA position is useful because we (and Harry) can attribute any of Snape's behavior towards the current DADA teacher as a manifestation of his desire for the job. But that doesn't mean that the desire isn't there. Given what we now know about the DADA position (it's cursed), I don't find it a stretch to believe that Snape really *has* been applying for the job all these years and has been denied it. Goddlefrood: > As we know Snape follows > orders and he would have to apply for the DADA post if LV wanted him > to. Or did LV want him to? After all LV would know of his own curse > on the position and only if he anticipated Snape staying only a year > or he lifted the curse could Snape last beyond a year in the post. Christina: I feel like I'm going to start rambling soon, so I'll put my main points here: -- Does Voldemort need Snape in the DADA position? Not really. The only things he could accomplish would be to counsel students toward the Dark Arts and generally sabotage the DADA education. Snape is Slytherin head of house, and so he interacts heavily with the students most likely to be sympathetic to Voldemort's cause. Most of the DADA teachers in recent years have stunted the students' education. So from LV's standpoint, having Snape teach DADA is pretty useless (and would even interfere with his role as a spy...I think Dumbledore would notice if Snape was doing sub-par teaching). Not to mention the fact that when Snape finally did get the DADA job, he did it well! He could have had the students sit and read out of their useless textbooks (ala Umbridge), but he didn't. -- This of course leads to your very question- especially if LV hasn't ordered Snape to get the DADA job, did Snape really want it? You provide interpretations of canon that demonstrate how we may have misinterpreted Snape's desire to teach DADA, but you offer no canon whatsoever that even suggests that Snape didn't want the Dark Arts job. We even see him enjoying his new position. -- If Snape didn't want the DADA position, why did he take it? He's not stupid, he *must* know it's cursed. People have speculated in the past that Snape thought he was strong enough to finally break the curse, but I find that difficult to reconcile with a Snape that seems to respect the power of the Dark Arts so much (look at Snape's first lesson...the man knows what horrors the Dark Arts are capable of). -- And...does it even matter? I don't see how it would change Snape's character one way or the other. He likes DADA- we *see* him enjoying it (he talks about it the same way he talks about Potions). Does Snape's particular stance on the DADA position matter so much? Christina, who hopes this post is at least semi-lucid. It's been one of those days. From hitchyker at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 04:26:24 2005 From: hitchyker at gmail.com (hitchyker42) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:26:24 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" *snip* > KathyK: > > 3. The PM appreciates why a fearful wizarding public would prefer > > Scrimgeour to Fudge. What differences do we encounter between the > > two? Besides the lime green bowler hat > SSSusan: *snip* > I do think it's interesting that, after this fairly promising start, > we end up with a MfM who's really just incompetent in slightly > different ways than the former one. Anybody disagree with me on that > or care to convince me otherwise? Collin: I have a hard time deciding if Scrimgeour is incompetent or not. Certainly he fails to get Harry to sign off on the MoMs Actions, but does this qualify as incompetence? Fudge's biggest incompetence as a politician is his total inability to control himself. When something flusters him or angers him, he is unable to conceal it, and Dumbledore totally uses this against him in OOP during the Hearing, and later when the DA meetings are revealed, to influence the outcome of the situation. During the hearing he backs Fudge into a corner over the issue of the presence of the dementors, and Fudge blithers and seethes, and when he is defeated in the vote, the defeat is written all over his reaction. In fact Dumbledore and Fudge are a study in contrast, the former cool and calm and totally unfazed even when he is forced out of Hogwarts, the latter totally transparent when he is outraged or upset. "Of course, these particular dementors may have been outside Ministry control--' "'There are no dementors outside Ministry control!' Snapped Fudge, who had turned brick red. "Dumbledore inclined his head in a little bow. "'Then undoubtedly the ministry will be making a full inquiry into why two dementors were so very far from Azkaban and why they attacked without authorization.'" (OOP ch. 8) I see echoes of this pattern in the conversation between Scrimgeour and the Muggle Prime Minister, with Scrimgeour in Dumbledore's role and the PM in Fudge's. "'Now, wait a moment!' declared the Prime Minister. "You can't just put your people into my office, I decide who works for me--' "'I thought you were happy with Shacklebolt?' said Scrimgeour coldly. "'I am--that's to say, I was--' "'Then there's no problem, is there?' said Scrimgeour." (HBP ch. 1) Scrimgeour is described as being rather more cold than Dumbledore is, but each of them is in control of himself while flustering his opponent. And Scrimgeour backs the PM into a corner much in the way Dumbledore did with Fudge in the hearing in OOP. So I guess I'd conclude that Scrimgeour isn't incompetent, at least not nearly in the way Fudge is. He may be taking the wrong actions, but as a politician he is skilled enough to manipulate others and keep his own cool, which Fudge is not. He may fail to convince Harry to sign off on the MoM, but I'd say he was fighting a losing battle to begin with, given the history there, and I'd also note that even though he loses control of himself at the very end of HBP, he fights to keep it in ways that I could never see Fudge doing. > Siriusly Snapey Susan, > waves at hitchyker42 and admonishes, "You should start posting!" ;-) waves back! :) Collin From kjones at telus.net Wed Oct 19 06:15:34 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:15:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4355E486.2060202@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141833 justcarol67 wrote: > Interesting that the PM knows about the Bones and Vance murders but > doesn't realize that Bones and Vance were witches (5 and 14). KJ writes: I think it interesting that the Bones and Vance murders were touched on in this chapter as I find it extremely unlikely that the average Prime Minister would even have an interest in the murders of a couple of unconnected women. One would think that several different kinds of killings would have happened in the country over the same time period, for different reasons. Madam Bones may have been likely to have become the new MoM and actually was murdered to prevent that from happening. I find the murder of Emmeline Vance even more suspicious considering the eventual offer made to Draco by Dumbledore. Both of these murders are mentioned in later chapters as though to keep them in mind. Fudge also states that Voldemort threatened a mass Muggle killing if he did not step down in Voldemort'd favour. Odd. If the MoM is elected, how could he step down in anyone's favour? How did Voldemort contact Fudge? Owl? Death Eater? Howler? Why would Voldemort threaten Muggles instead of threatening the families of the Ministry, and other wizards? Why would Voldemort interfere with the Muggle Ministry anyway? Why attack a juniour Minister? Nothing more was mentioned about the PM for the whole rest of the book. There are more questions to this chapter than answers IMO. > I think the locked door and plugged keyhole simply represents > scrimgeour's instinctive caution. He's not as paranoid as Mad-Eye > Moody, but his experience as an Auror has taught him to be > careful--and after all, if a Muggle overheard, he'd have to have his > memory modified. Fudge, never having been an auror, doesn't think that > way. One of his first actions on his first visit is to transform the > PM's teacup into a gerbil to prove that he really is a wizard and the > visit is not a hoax. He's essentially a diplomat; Scrimgeour is > essentially a tough-minded police captain. KJ writes: I agree with this assessment. I think that Fudge is the baby-kissing, glad-handing politicion whose security and personal safety has been looked after by the Scrimgeour types. Fudge hasn't had to worry about it. Scrimgeour as a career Auror is security and safety conscious. It is to set the stage for a war situation instead of a negotiated settlement. > > 8. Who might have cast the poorly performed Imperius Curse? What > > makes the curse poorly performed? Was it just sloppy magic, or > > function similarly to the other Unforgivables in that you really > > have to mean it for it to be successful? KJ writes: I think that this is perhaps suggesting a more successful Imperious later on. We see a bit about the Imperious Curse in OotP. It's almost like the fleeting mention of Polyjuice in CoS and the Cruciatis Curse in GoF. They keep coming up. KJ From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 19 07:30:22 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:30:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's mistakes?/Les Miserables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141834 > > o> Alla: > > > I would not have brought eleven year old psychopath to the > school > > I > > > am in charge with, because I would be afraid that other people > may > > > be hurt by my decision. > > > > > > > Elyse: (snipped)> > Who are you to decide whether an eleven year old is a psychopath? > > I doubt a single psychiatrist would in his or her professional > > opinion (ie knowing they might be sued for it) would declare Tom > > Riddle a dangerous,unredeemable,psychopath,who should not be > allowed > > the privilege of education, based on that little interview. > Alla: > > Hmmm. Who am I to decide? I am the reader of the series, who as ANY > other reader has a right to decide how to label a fictional > character. Based on what I read about psychopathy Tom Riddle gives me > an impression of psychopath. Is it going to be hundred percent > correct label? Of course not, I am NOT a psychiatrist, but I don't > think I have to be for talking about fiction......heavily snipped... it is really not that important for me how to call > young Tom besides the fact that he was dangerous at such young age. > What IS important to me is that Dumbledore KNEW that Tom was > dangerous and did not do anything about it, except deciding to keep > an eye on him and apparently not doing a very good job out of it, > IMo. Elyse: Exactly, when you and I read the books, we know that they are just books. We know that this is all in our imagination. So its very easy for us to say Tom Riddle is a psychopath. But Dumbledore was vested with a HUGE responsibility. For him, it was a very difficult decision since it was all very real to him. And he had absolutely no way of determining exactly how far gone little Tom was. Dumbledore was no psychiatrist either. How could he possibly know the terrible things that this child *might* do ten or twenty years in the future? Even DD says himself: "Did I know then that I had met the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time? No I had no idea he was to grow up to be what he is." (pg 258 in my book) And what could he have possibly done about it if he knew? He wasnt the headmaster, he wasnt the minister for magic, and I'm guessing these are only people with the power to deny a wizard child the privilege of education. And if he had not allowed Tom Riddle to enter Hogwarts, he would have been a Dark wizard running amok in the Muggle world, which would surely have been more dangerous. > > > Elyse: > > He may have certain qualities that point in this direction, yes, > but > > that could be because he never received proper guidance, never got > > the love, the moral and ethical persuasion that others did. > > Is it too much to presume that he might make friends at Hogwarts > > where he would be among other wizards of his own kind? > > IMO, this what Dumbledore believed or at the least, hoped for. > > And based on this, Dumbledore chose to give him not his second > > chance, but his first one. > > Alla: > SNIP > Oh, and I am NOT comfortable with many "essentialism" qualities of > Potterverse, but I do believe that JKR's world has them, whether I > like them or not. Elyse: I believe JKR's world has them too. But I sure wish she would clarify them cause we get ourselves into a right stew about them here at HPfGU...:-) Alla: > Second chances or first chances are good, BUT Dumbledore deciding to > give Tom Riddle a chance lead to a disaster, IMO. I was just trying > to show that putting trust in one soul is the thing which Dumbledore > does quite easily ,even if he suspects that it could hurt others. > Elyse: Oh I have to disagree with you here! I dont think Dumbledore would let his personal trust or belief in others interfere with the safety of his students. I think this is more than evident from the scene in HBP: Harry says something along the lines of :"You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you havent even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to-" And *this* is the point where DD becomes angry. Harry feels he has crossed an invisible line. And DD says: "Please do not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students seriously, Harry" And hey, if he says that to his favourite boy, the Chosen One who he cares so much for, I say thats what he would have said to us too. > > > Elyse: > > If Dumbledore had > > warned them before he reached Hogwarts, would any teacher have > > believed him? They would have thought that Dumbledore was simply > > prejudiced; how could sweet,smart Tom Riddle be a psychopath? > > > Alla: > > All teachers seemed to be quite eager to trust Snape based ONLY on > Dumbledore's words, so yes, I think if Dumbledore queitly told > Slughorn to keep an eye on Mr. Riddle, I think many disastrous events > would have been avoided, because Slughorn would have been at least > listened out of respect to Dumbledore, if not because he would > genuinely believed so. > Elyse: Heh Heh, this is so hilariously funny. All the time DD was screaming himself hoarse about how he trusted Severus Snape completely, it was only after his death that it was revealed how little they trusted Snape all these years. It seems, judging from his reaction, that Hagrid was the only one who really accepted DD's second-hand trust. And this was about Snape being a Death Eater,. Obviously, people are going to be sceptical about someone evil who undergoes a conversion to the good side. But how many people would have really accepted DD's claims that this nice quiet sweet intelligent boy was really a psychopath? They would have said the same stuff the Snape haters have done for all this time, and simply thrown his hands into the air and gone "You know what, the old man is Wrong! He's getting old, and in the matter of his prejudice towars that lovely boy, well his judgement is just a little biased thats all." Thats is after all what Snape haters keep harping on. I'm sure it would have been the same if he declared to the teachers that Riddle was evil. > Alla: > > I don't really want to go into discussing Dumbledore's speech in OOP > again, but nowhere in that speech he says that he ahd no other > options, as far as I can remember. He said you would be the safest, > where your mother blood dwells, he said that their DE out on the > loose, but as I said earlier, it was not hundred percent clear to me. > > But yeah, I think that this is what JKR intended - to be left with > Dursleys or die, I just think that she did not convey it clear enough > AND without Dumbledore singing a different tune in HBP, he comes out > ( to me only of course) in a bad light after OOP for at least not > interfering and checking up on Harry. > Elyse: I agree with you one hundred percent on this one. OOP was the only time DD came out in a bad light for me, and I too think it was because of his behaviour towards Harry throughout the school year. I am, like you, very relieved and slightly thankful JKR backtracked on this one in HBP. I was never comfortable with the Puppetmaster!DD scenario myself. > Alla: > You missed my point completely, I am sorry for being unclear. > The reason I wrote the tirade about what I would not have done if I > were Dumbledore was to show that in many instances Dumbledore is > BETTER person than I am, but also in some instances his trust in > people has to be balanced with other issues, such as safety of the > other people he is responsible for. > > I am NOT saying that he should not have given Snape a second chance ( > although when I am not in charitable mood, I happen to believe that > Snape failed that chance), I think it is a GOOD thing on Dumbledore > part, BUT I also think that it was irresponsible of Dumbledore not to > think about his students before he did so, IMO. > > I am saying that Dumbledore with his tremendous connections > everywhere could have find a job for Snape for example somewhere in > the WW analogy of potion research institute, or something like that, > but to keep him away from children. Trust him? > Yes. Help him to find a way to make a living? Absolutely. But NOT > endager the students, because Dumbledore decided to give hima second > chance. Elyse: I think someone has already addressed this pointing out that Snape has never actually endangered students, but on the contrary, saved a number of lives. But yes, I yeild to your argument that DD could have found a job for him somewhere else. (Although I shudder to think what kind of potions he might have brewed at that Potion Research Institute if he was inventing Sectumsemprs at fifteen) :-) > Alla: > To be fair, I think Dumbledore suffers from having to wear too many > hats, way too many - He has different responsibilities as > Headmaster, as Leader of OOP and as spiritual leader of the light ( > that mostly speculative title, but I think it is there - sort of lead > by example) and those responsibilities sometimes require to take very > opposing actions, IMO. Elyse: Oh absolutely. I love the image of a burdened Dumbledore carrying the weight of the wizarding world on his shoulders. And yes these conflicting hats probably made him take the decision of keeping Harry in the Dark in OOTP and not telling Harry about the prophecy in book one. I think the Father Figure to Harry hat was probably responsible for most of those mistakes. With such huge responsibilities its no wonder he had no equals. > > Alla: > Oh, and I LOVE "Les Miserables". Talk about great story of the > redemption. The difference why the story of Jean Valjan worked so > well for me as redemption story is because we SEE Valjan being > genuinely remorseful for his sins ( which IMO are so small and > insignificant in comparison to Snape's - he stole because he was, but > that is not the point) Elyse: And hopefully we will see Snape being genuinely remorseful in the last book. And lets be optimistic (or delusional...) and say that Snape who was so used to "slithering out of action" did not really have any extremely horrible sins attached to his name...maybe we ought to gift him a copy of Les Miserables hmm? Or should we let Harry do that in book seven...;-) Alla: AND we see him being nice to all people and > keep sacrificing his own happiness for Kosette and Marius ( > spelling?). Elyse: Dunno bout the spelling but if Snape was DDM all along then, he we did see him make a LOT of sacrifices like saving Harry's ass, and Draco's too. Alla: I believed Valjan remorse because I read about it on the > pages over and over again, I cried when he died. > > Going back to Snape, I think that his remorse is only hinted to in > very brief passing, everything else is just us filling out the blanks. Elyse: Which book seven will hopefully clear up. I want to read about Snape's remorse over the pages again and again, and I am going to sit down with book seven only after ensuring I am surrounded by tissues ;-) Elyse, who knows those tissues wont be wasted if Snape is ESE, cause we still have the Harry is a Horcrux theory to provide the waterfalls of tears. From kjones at telus.net Wed Oct 19 07:32:03 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:32:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Characters and Consequences? /What does Dumbledore want on the Tower? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4355F673.5020709@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141835 cubfanbudwoman wrote: > Alla: > > Well, the point that Dumbledore would not ask anyone to risk their > > soul in order to help out in his sacrifice also had been argued > > over and over and it also does not make any impression whatsoever. > > Maybe because those points are at the heart of the opposing > > Snape's interpretations and they are bound not to make any > > impressions untill JKR says so? :-) > > > I prefer to see Dumbledore as someone who would not take a risk of > > destroying the soul of another human being, even at the time of > > war, even if that human being soul was already hurt before. KJ writes: Some of us see a different Dumbledore than the others. JKR is obviously making some points about "Nobody is all good or all bad." When she suggests that Dumbledore is the epitome of good, I think we have to watch out a little bit. 1. He gives Harry an invisibility cloak 2. He has the Slytherin banners up at the year end feast and then shoots the Slyths down in flames. That was mentioned by several posters to be cruel. Why not leave the walls blank until the final points were given? 3. He allows Snape to torment Harry. 4. He sends Snape back to Voldemort knowing he could be killed, and expecting he will be interrogated rather nastily. 5. His protection of Harry at the Triwizard tournament left something to be desired. He knew there was something being planned. 6. There was the ever famous gleam when he heard that Voldemort had used Harry's blood. 7. There was his complete avoidance of Harry throughout OotP when all he had to do was send Harry a note saying that he would explain later. 8. I like his answer to Harry when he asked if learning about Tom Riddle would help him to survive. Dumbledore said that he hoped it would help him to survive. Not a real confidence builder in my opinion. Particularly since he got teary in OotP over the chance of Harry's unhappiness. He seems to handle Harry's potential death much better. 9. Forces Harry to pour poison down his gullet in HBP. 10. Lays a huge guilt trip on Harry for not busting his arse getting him Slughorn's memories. In fact, he sounded a bit like Snape for a while there. All in all, how can anyone think for a minute that Dumbledore would stick at a little thing like asking someone to risk splitting his soul. Perhaps that was why Snape was so angry, and why he so greatly resented being called a coward. At the very least, he is sending Harry out to systematically murder all the little parts of Voldemort's soul. Is there a difference between the murder of a person, which presumably frees their soul, and murdering the soul itself? That is too deep for me. Does it make it all right because V is not considered to be human any more? Like SSSusan, I think that Dumbledore believes that the protection of the WW from Voldemort and his form of evil is paramount to all other considerations. He demonstrated his own willingness to give up his life to the cause on at least three separate occasions, as well as his single-mindedness. He is not just a sweet little old wizard! KJ From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 19 07:53:54 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:53:54 -0000 Subject: What would Dumbledore do? (Re: Twist JKR?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > > > > Elyse: > > > > P.S. I know this is totally unrelated to the topic, but someone > > (Betsy?) asked before, how people can say Snape would not do such-and- > > such a thing because it would be OOC, and wondered how people could > > possibly *know* Snape so well. > > I want to know how come people keep saying Dumbledore /would/ do > > certain things, because it would/would not be in character. I know > > that we have more info on DD than Snape but we still dont know all > > that much abot his character > > > > Hickengruendler: > > I'm not 100% sure what exactly you mean. I assume you mean the > opinions, that Dumbledore would never beg for his life or would never > ask someone else to kill him. These are the two points I'm answering, > I'm not sure if you mean some other scenes as well. > Elyse: Actually I was directing that towards thwe question of whether Dumbledore would deliberately put Hogwarts students in danger if he trusted an ex Death Eater, but I was also talking about people saying that he would *never* ask someone to rip their soul if thats what the cost of killing really is. I do agree one hundred percent that Dumbledore begging for his life or being afraid or unwilling to die would totally destroy the character JKR has set up. But this is because we have direct canon that justifies this belief, whether it ids DD taunting Voldemort about fearing death or the more concrete description of death as the "next great adventure" in PS/SS. Hickengruendler: > In a > scene, by the way, in which he told Harry, that he destroyed the > Philosopher's Stone, therefore basically sacrificing his old friend > Nicholas Flamel (of course with Flamel's agreement) to make sure that > the stone will never get into Voldemort's hand. This does IMO seem to > imply, that Dumbledore is not totally against sacrificing a human life, > if it helps the greater good. Elyse: I snipped a lot of your post because I agreed with it completely. But I kept this part because I think it supports the argument that Dumbledore thinks a human life expendable if it is really really important for the wizarding or muggle worlds,or as you put it - the Greater Good. But some fans dont agree with this, and the claim that Dumbledore *would never* ask himself or herself to rip their soul if it was the one thing that would keep the Chosen One alive and/or help the future of the wizarding and Muggle world. This assumption is what I was challenging, because it requires a much deeper insight into how Dumbledore would view the situation. An insight that we are not given; and any attempt to fill that blank will remain presumption and speculation. We should be wary of imposing traits on a character to justify them. Hickengruendler: > On the other hand, many who think Snape is ESE or OFH, think it would > be more OOC for him to ask someone else to kill him. Considering that > we learnt, that a murder splits the soul, it is understandable that > some readers think Dumbledore would never ask for this, since his "next > great adventure" speech implies that he believes in the afterlife, and > that people with a destroyed soul might not make that step to a better > place Elyse: We do not know for sure that every murder splits the soul and until this is proven beyond a doubt, I would not call this canon. And if every murder does not split the soul, I dont see why Dumbledore would not ask this of Snape if it meant saving the life the Chosen One destined to defeat Voldemort. Elyse, who was only trying to explain her intentions to begin with in this post and somehow ended up making an argument for Dumbledore's sacrifice on the tower. From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Wed Oct 19 07:14:31 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:14:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister (from Meri) -- long! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141837 Lots of big snips of Meri's excellent comments. She must have put her time in Purgatory to very good use! Such interesting questions! So, let's have a go ... If the Muggle Prime Minister is horrified to see wizards appearing down the chimney of Number 10, how would the royals respond? (Heroically suppresses suggestions including homeopathic remedies and small Welsh dogs.) And I suspect that if the royals don't know about the wizarding world, then the WW might know that the royals exist but wouldn't care much. It's not as if HM would ever visit St Mungo's, or confer Orders of Merlin in person. When does one sing "God save the Queen" these days, in Ma'am's absence? Basically, at sports meetings. And I must say that if England were ever to make it to the finals of the Football World Cup ? no. Bad Deborah. Toes in the oven. Ahem. When England made it to the finals of the Rugby World Cup, GSTQ rang out all around the ground, especially at the moment of victory; together with other songs. And at the Quidditch World Cup ... lots of leprechauns and Veelas, but no national anthems that I recall; books are elsewhere, though. And Ireland are a bit iffy; one is never sure if it's the whole geographical island playing or just the Republic. Or the Provinces. For rugby union the whole island plays, and they've got a wonderful song, but for football they're separate and I dunno what they sing. I can imagine Kingsley Shacklebolt singing GSTQ most melodiously when he's undercover in the MW, but not otherwise. Being a citizen means being officially on the books of the civil service. That's when the taxes (except VAT), schooling, soldiering etc kick in. Being born is usually a big, fat clue to the civil service that there's someone new to take an interest in. But, a wizard with a National Health number? Clearly not! Or, if the birth was registered, then the NHS services would be available but just never used ? a real money saver for the Muggle taxpayer. Or is it? How could wizards pay taxes? In what currency? OK, nothing that Gringott's couldn't handle, but why bother? Taxes pay for road and rail transport, communication, social and medical services, education (not Hogwarts, though) and a whopping great civil service. So, my take on it would be: wizards can if they choose become part of the RW. Ron's uncle the accountant is a notorious example and must pay taxes ? unless he's <*that*> kind of accountant (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). And they can if they choose interact with the RW, on their own terms, as Dumbledore did at the orphanage. Just a sheet of blank paper, under the right conditions, and everyone's happy! Wizarding taxes would go to the MfM, and it is extremely likely that they do. How else could it offer our Perce, and so many others, a steady job? But, shopping at the Gap, or indeed at Boots or Harrod's, would be too complicated to bother with. If there are no clothing shops in Diagon Alley advertising Real Muggle Sportswear On Special ? Astonish Your Friends!, then I am surprised. Do RW and WW wars run in parallel? If so, there would be no cause for wizards to enlist in Muggle armed forces; if not, they might if they chose, using the Blank Paper Ploy, or they might be more usefully deployed in a different capacity. Special Air Services, broomstick division? Bletchley Park style codebreaking? Where do wizards spend their Galleons? Clothing, OK. Medical services, OK. Sport, OK. Entertainment and reading matter, OK. Pubs and fast foods, OK. All nice and canonical. That leaves food, household cleaning products and, er, apothecariceuticals. Which takes us back to Molly in the kitchen. Bechamel flows from her wand into the chicken and ham pie; origins of sauce, chicken, ham and pie crust unknown, origins of potatoes ditto. My feeling is that the WW probably operates a system analogous to Internet shopping ? you make your order, and the delivery takes place, perhaps by Floo if wands are an inconvenient size and shape, or the man on the white broomstick delivers; payment is of course by direct transfer. When Muggle taxis are needed, perhaps one can have a small account in a Muggle bank to draw on in emergencies; I know I run a small a/c in the foreign country I visit most. And the VAT charged on the taxi fare would, rightly and reasonably, go to the Muggle government to pay for the roads. This is too neat and tidy! I must be overlooking something! Ah well, help is sure to be at hand ... Deborah, having such fun From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 13:12:58 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:12:58 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141839 > SSSusan: >> > I know that the other day, I presented this argument > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141611 : > > >>>Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he believes > to be the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for either Harry to > kill Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry. He confirms this to Harry in OoP, > and he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell Harry, "Gee, I hate that you > have to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!" > > In *my* mind, I could easily see the reason that DD does not say such > a thing to Harry (even when the topic is right there before them as > they talk about horcruxes!) as that he knows this is WAR, this is an > issue of The Greater Good. And perhaps he knows or suspects that > this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul. I don't know whether the killing of Voldemort would or would not rip Harry's soul, but I `d like to point out that for Voldemort it's also the matter of utmost *necessity* to destroy Harry. One after all can't live if the other survives. Even though Voldemort does not know the whole text of the Prophesy its first part is quite sufficient to make Harry's killing the first priority for him. If *necessary* killings is "permissible" and do not result in soul- ripping, then the killing of the Potters should have leaved Voldemort's soul intact. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 19 13:27:00 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:27:00 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141840 >Potioncat: >It's not a bad idea to go back to canon every now and > then > > to make sure we've got it right. > > > > Neri: > I fully agree with that, which is why my posts generally have a lot > of quoted canon in them. THEORY BAY The sun is shining brightly on Theory Bay. Potioncat comes out of a dilapidated old warehouse and pauses to look around. She spies Neri admiring a collection of cannons at the edge of Theory Bay and goes to join him. "What we have here," Potioncat says, "Is a failure to communicate." Neri frowns, "Have you ever seen the movie that line is from?" "No, and I don't plan to," She answers. "You may recall that not too long along I congratulated you because your ideas about Snape's delay had taken on canon-like status among some of the list members? Of course, you are right that things start around supper and end at dawn. A lot of time and research went into working out the timeline, as I recall. Many, many posters were engaged. However, who does what, when they do it and how it should have been done is a matter of interpretation." "Agreed." "But it's not at all unusual for a post to begin with, 'Remember when Snape postponed informing the Order' and then adding some thoughts based on that theory. Now, perhaps the writer knows they're adding to an interpretation, or perhaps by now, the writer has forgotten that it is interpretation. Or the person reading the post may not have been around when the discussion first occurred." Neri frowns, "Your point?" "Quite a few of us agree that a dead person who looks as if he is sleeping has a peaceful expression. It is canon, I won't quote the passage here, that DD looked as if he were sleeping except for the position of his limbs. "How any of us interpret that appearance and the meaning behind it is up to us. Of course we need canon support to go along with it, and it's acceptable that others may interpret the canon differently. But it's valid for me to say that DD's peaceful expression reflects his state of mind at the time of death." Potioncat continues, "Snape's delay and DD's peaceful expression are here to stay at least until the next hurricane. I don't remember if you ever gave the delay its own name and vessel, but I think you should. I've decided to launch the Peaceful Expression theory." Potioncat waves toward the bay and Neri sees a small version of a Viking ship in the middle of the bay. The ship is draped in black and contains a bier. "I give you SLEEP. Sleeping Leader Enjoys Eternal Peace." "SLEEP is the theory or interpretation that DD's appearance of sleep immediately after his death means that he has died with assurance that his requests are being obeyed. With some details and variations to be worked out in other posts." Neri nods, "I see. And you're the captain?" "Oh, no. No one would actually sail on it. It's a replica of a Viking funeral ship sort of like a museum. I could use a curator and some docents to help educate the masses and provide canon backup for the whole idea. Someone to state the interpretation in its variations a little better. "Now, how about a name for Snape's delay?" (Potioncat who played herself. Neri was portrayed by a T BAY re- enactor and may not actually be stating his opinions. ) From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 19 13:34:58 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:34:58 -0000 Subject: Serious or Sirius (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > 6. Is "Serious" Black now officially innocent? > Question: JKR twice puts "Serious" (Black) in quotation marks in this > chapter. Is she doing that to indicate that this is how the PM thinks > it's spelled (like "Kwidditch" for Quidditch)? Or is "Serious" not the > correct pronunciation for Sirius (which means I've been mispronouncing > it all this time)? Marianne: The pronunciation of Sirius has come up for discussion on some Potter fanfic sites I visit. From comments I've seen there, Sirius and "serious" are homonyms for Americans, while there is a slight difference in pronunciation for Brits, "Sirius" being pronounced with a somewhat longer "E" sound than in "serious." Which has then led people to discuss whether using word plays on the pronunciations makes sense or not, as in dialog like: "I'm serious," said James. "No, I'm Sirius," Sirius replied. JKR has admitted to visiting various Potter sites. I wonder if she's picked up on this and decided to play a bit herself. Or perhaps this is just another small indication of the difference between the WW and the Muggle world - it wouldn't occur to the PM that someone was named after a star, and thus the only possible way he could interpret what Fudge said was "serious." Marianne From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 19 13:40:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:40:26 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" > wrote: > > > >> Nora: > >> Special emphasis on how much Snape thinks he's right on #2, > >> which he tends to think about most people and things: > > > > > > > Betsy Hp: > > How do you figure that? > > That's defined the Harry and Snape dynamic from the beginning, > starting from "Harry Potter, our newest celebrity". What is that if > not an assumption, resistant to revision? It's also the thematic > flaw in Snape's character in the Shrieking Shack: when he has Black > and Lupin at his mercy, Hermione (the voice of reason and logic) begs > him that it wouldn't hurt just to listen, but Snape shoots back at > her that she's a 'silly girl' and doesn't understand. I think that's > readable as conviction in his rightness. A pity it's wrong. Or one > thinks of how quickly he jumps to the argument that Harry *must* have > put his own name in the Goblet. Snape's a terrier in many regards; > he holds to some things past sensibility and without examination. > Pippin: What part of Harry's celebrity is in question? Indeed, one might even consider that Snape knows more about Harry's celebrity than Harry himself. Harry has no idea that Draco might see him as a potential Dark Lord, and if he did, he might be perfectly happy to see that idea squashed, even at the cost of being humiliated in public. He certainly wasn't happy about being thought of as Slytherin's Heir in Book Two. As for the Shrieking Shack, can't you see how delicious this is? Well, maybe not, if you can't get your mind around innocent Snape even as a hypothesis. But could you suspend your disbelief long enough to see that JKR could put Harry in a position very analogous to Snape's in the SS? Suppose Snape tried to explain his innocence, do you think Harry would listen to him for a moment? Or would his mind be full of the knowledge that Dumbledore trusted Snape and Dumbledore is dead. That Snape might any moment, even if he appeared wandless and helpless, do some magic that would rob Harry of his volition and force him to do whatever Snape pleased. Especially since Snape's innocence would open a horrible can of worms about whether Harry himself was responsible for DD's demise. Why, Harry might even say that Snape deserved to be handed straight to the dementors along with any of his allies. Wouldn't it be perfectly natural and not indicative of a one-note character at all? Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 19 13:55:51 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:55:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141843 SSSusan earlier: > > I do think it's interesting that, after this fairly promising > > start, we end up with a MfM who's really just incompetent in > > slightly different ways than the former one. Anybody disagree > > with me on that or care to convince me otherwise? Collin: > I have a hard time deciding if Scrimgeour is incompetent or not. > Certainly he fails to get Harry to sign off on the MoMs Actions, but > does this qualify as incompetence? SSSusan again: That's the question, I think. To me, Fudge is *obviously* incompetent (and you provide an excellent explanation of this below). With Scrimgeour, I guess where I find myself questioning his competence is later on... when, not only does he fail to bring Harry aboard [and he really *does* muck those attempts up -- Harry sees right through him], but also when he makes arrests just in order to be making arrests. He seems to be not only failing to make much progress, but he's engaging in really inappropriate action in arresting and *keeping* detained people whom he really should not. I definitely class that as a form of incompetence, though perhaps there is a more appropriate word than that? Collin: > Fudge's biggest incompetence as a politician is his total inability > to control himself. When something flusters him or angers him, he > is unable to conceal it, and Dumbledore totally uses this against > him in OOP during the Hearing, and later when the DA meetings are > revealed, to influence the outcome of the situation. During the > hearing he backs Fudge into a corner over the issue of the presence > of the dementors, and Fudge blithers and seethes.... SSSusan: Heh heh. The list elf in me knows I should have snipped more, but I couldn't resist leaving in "blithers and seethes." Such an apt description of just what Fudge does. ;-) Yes, you've nailed it with Fudge. Not only is the guy actually incompetent, he's not even very good at covering up the fact! Collin: > In fact Dumbledore and Fudge are a study in contrast, the former > cool and calm and totally unfazed even when he is forced out of > Hogwarts, the latter totally transparent when he is outraged or > upset. > > > I see echoes of this pattern in the conversation between Scrimgeour > and the Muggle Prime Minister, with Scrimgeour in Dumbledore's role > and the PM in Fudge's. > > > So I guess I'd conclude that Scrimgeour isn't incompetent, at least > not nearly in the way Fudge is. He may be taking the wrong actions, > but as a politician he is skilled enough to manipulate others and > keep his own cool, which Fudge is not. He may fail to convince > Harry to sign off on the MoM, but I'd say he was fighting a losing > battle to begin with.... SSSusan: Now *that* is an excellent catch of that similar pattern in the interaction between DD & Fudge and the one between Scrimgeour & the PM. And, while I'm *certain* I didn't catch on to that when I read it, perhaps you've highlighted why I did think Scrimgeour showed promise of competence when we first met him. Because, while it may have been a losing battle to have tried to bring Harry aboard, as I said above, my opinion is that Scrimgeour really *botched* those attempts, too. And Scrimgeour caved to the kind of political pressure/"must stay popular" garbage that Fudge would have done when he arrested people *and kept them detained* just so people couldn't say he wasn't accomplishing anything. So, in the end, I agree with you that Fudge and Scrimgeour are quite different, and Fudge's incompetencies are more apparent and possibly more widely spread, but I was still disappointed at where Scrimgeour went in the story, after what felt to me as a fairly promising start. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nanuknnatasha at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 19 14:32:41 2005 From: nanuknnatasha at yahoo.ca (nanuknnatasha) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:32:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141844 SSSusan: > > > And then this "I wanted to use this before" chapter which had > > > us all thinking, "Oh, boy! BIG stuff!" Only to have it > > > be "just" a meeting between the WW and MW head honchos. > > > > > > Truth be told, I have a hard time imagining just how JKR > > > would've used this earlier. a_svirn: > > I am more interested to know why she wanted to use it at all. I > > mean, it is not in the least surprising that she should have > > taken pains to *separate* the two worlds in the previous five > > books. bboyminn: > Sometimes an author just has a cool plot idea. I'm sure JKR > thought it would be cool to see the interaction between the Muggle > and Magic governments, and it was at least that, cool. > > But, I also agree that it couldn't have possibly worked before now. I think that for something as momentous to the readers as contact between the Ministry and the PM, it should have come right where it did. The strange disappearances and deaths, the Dementors siding with Voldemort, and the threat of much more to come would allow the reader to believe that things were bad enough to involve certain representatives of the Muggle community. If it had been included in another book, I think the effect would not have been the same. With it being included in the book where things really start to "hit the fan", it serves the purpose of really driving home the desperation of the Ministry to stop Voldemort, and the terror of those who know what's really going on. After all, being an ignorant Muggle isn't going to save them... nanuknnatasha From rh64643 at appstate.edu Wed Oct 19 16:19:16 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:19:16 -0000 Subject: Characters and Consequences? ( Petunia)/ Snape's apologising to Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141845 Lupinlore: > > > An apology will also be required of course, if only because > > > it would cost Sevvie so much to come up with it. Betsy Hp: > > I'm sorry, Harry, that I saved your life when Quirrell nearly > > killed you. I'm sorry, Harry, that when Voldemort was invading > > your mind I tried to train you to keep him out. > > Hmmm, actually, I think Snape may well enjoy the whole > > apologizing Alla: > Mine version of Snape apology will be much shorter and not tongue > in cheek. I am sorry Harry for giving a murderous maniac a reason > to kill your parents. I am sorry for helping you to grew up as an > orphan. I am really sorry that because of that you had to grew up > with Dursleys. > > See, I can grasp the idea of Snape redemption, I really, really > do and I even think that it may work well, but I absolutely cannot > grasp blaming Harry for looking at Snape in hateful way. truthbeauty 1: I agree 100%, Alla. Snape started this whole ball moving and if he is ever going to redeem himself and be of any use the cause, he is going to have to sincerely apologise for his past horrific actions. I personally believes he owes an apology to Neville and Hermione too, because of the way he has consistently mistreated them throuhgout the series, but I don't see that happening. I don't know how Snape will play out in the next book, but he has to make some ammends to Harry. From rh64643 at appstate.edu Wed Oct 19 16:27:14 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:27:14 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > I don't know whether the killing of Voldemort would or would not rip > Harry's soul, but I `d like to point out that for Voldemort it's > also the matter of utmost *necessity* to destroy Harry. One after > all can't live if the other survives. Even though Voldemort does not > know the whole text of the Prophesy its first part is quite > sufficient to make Harry's killing the first priority for him. If > *necessary* killings is "permissible" and do not result in soul- > ripping, then the killing of the Potters should have leaved > Voldemort's soul intact. I don't know about the Potters, but Harry, yes. Voldemort could have stunned James and Lily and then finished Harry off. He didn't even consider saving James, which makes me believe that it may have actually been him that he was intending to make a horcrux with. Now, I don't know the morality of horcruxes, but it seems that maybe killing a defenseless child would split your soul no matter who it was. Perhaps in this line of thinking, if Voldemort had allowed Harry to grow up on his own and then killed him in battle, it may not have split his soul. I definitely do not believe that Harry's soul will be split by killing Voldemort. He is kind of balancing out the universe by killing him. (no man should become immortal?) Hope this makes some sense. truthbeauty1 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 19 16:58:59 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:59 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141847 > Neri: > A main difference between canon and interpretation is that the > interpretation depends on our (frequently tacit) assumption as to > the message or the point that the author was trying to make. Here, > for example, you assume that the message was Dumbledore's > expression and other "clues" regarding his body, because this > would fit with your theory, and therefore you are trying to solve > these clues and decode Dumbledore's expression from JKR's words. > But it is a possibility that the author's message here was > actually different, and that Dumbledore's exact expression wasn't > even very relevant to it. Jen: Even though I agree with your later point that this passage was likely about Harry's reaction to Dumbledore's death more than anything else, I can't understand why it's suddenly inadvisable by list standards or list rules to form canon in our own image, so to speak. Why does it matter really? Are we doing a disservice to JKR who 'loves the theories'? Are we doing a disservice to fellow- listees who get caught up in a certain phrases like 'peaceful expression' and later find out that wasn't canon as written? Anyone at any time can look up the exact canon as you did and say 'hold on' but it seems your argument is going beyond that, saying we *shouldn't* be extrapolating anymore. That our texts should always be by our sides (which mine are btw, and I use quoted canon frequently) to check and double-check what we say before posting. There are lists out there which require a very strict canon analysis in each in every post, and in fact listees can be removed for interpreting beyond that which the moderators feel is canon. But hpfgu has never been that way. If it were, half the wonderfully imaginative theories of the past would never have been written and enjoyed. And I don't think you are advocating we have such a list, Neri, but I'm hearing a message that even a harmless mistake like 'peaceful expression' is not acceptable anymore. I've found myself making several canon mistakes, even with the books at my side, because I don't know HBP like the back of my hand yet. I suspect most of us are in the same boat at the moment with that. Pointing it out and quoting canon has always been enough in the past and usually sets the error straight--why take it a step further now? Carol: > It is reasonable to examine the evidence and hypothesize on the > basis of it. That, I believe, is what we do on this list. (I, for > one,haven't forgotten that Narcissa's tears canonically splashing > onto Snape's chest led to ACID POPS. :-) ) Neri: > And I thank you for demonstrating how I try to do it in my > own posts. ACID POPS is indeed a theory, an interpretation, a > collection of hypotheses, and I was never shy about this. But > Narcissa's tears splashing on Snape's chest *is* most definitely > canon. I find the adverb "canonically" useful in communicating the > difference between canon and interpretation in my posts. Jen: So you are saying the issue that bothers you is when people don't clearly define theory and interpretation in a post? You are a great writer, Neri, and I for one would be very disappointed if ACID POPS never made it on the books, as well as some of the other theories and ideas you've contributed in the past. I hope you understand I'm pressing this issue because it greatly concerns me to see the list move from a more free-wheeling style to one where some of us are starting to feel very constrained by what is considered acceptable. We've lost a fair few good writers and theorizers because of this, some of whom I've talked to directly and some learned about second-hand. Maybe it's true 'all things must change' but it doesn't make it more palatable. > Carol, who considers the "peaceful expression" *semi*canonical, but > will try to remember to say "DD's apparently composed expression" > in future. > Neri: Why not simply use "DD appearing asleep"? It's shorter, and >it's canon. Jen, who doesn't care if people want to use 'appearing asleep' 'peaceful expression' 'apparently composed' or for that matter, 'clearly glad Snape AK'd him on the tower' as long as they can back up that last one ;). From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 17:01:39 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:01:39 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141848 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > What part of Harry's celebrity is in question? Indeed, one might > even consider that Snape knows more about Harry's celebrity than > Harry himself. Harry has no idea that Draco might see him as a > potential Dark Lord, and if he did, he might be perfectly happy to > see that idea squashed, even at the cost of being humiliated in > public. He certainly wasn't happy about being thought of as > Slytherin's Heir in Book Two. No perception exists in a vacuum, of course. Do you treat someone differently if you know, or at least suspect, that they know little or nothing about their own status? If Snape is Dumbledore's bad cop who does everything for a reason, surely he would be that well- informed, or at least not going to take hasty pre-emptive action...right? I haven't run into the situation yet in my own classroom, but there are famous people/children thereof enrolled as undergraduates, and they generally really appreciate being treated as other students and not being marked out for either acclaim or opprobrium. So there's not only information, there's what you do with it. > As for the Shrieking Shack, can't you see how delicious this is? > Well, maybe not, if you can't get your mind around innocent Snape > even as a hypothesis. But could you suspend your disbelief long > enough to see that JKR could put Harry in a position very analogous > to Snape's in the SS? I can, actually. I would hope that Harry, being the better man in at least some ways, could find it in himself to at least listen, and ponder the facts. It would be gratifying in literary terms to get that kind of retread where the same mistake is *not* made. But isn't this a shift for you, Pippin, or am I mistaken in thinking that you've generally argued that Snape was just acting in the Shack (as Dumbledore's seekrit agent), and that it was all actually set up by ESE!Lupin? Not so good a parallel, then. :) -Nora can see some forms of more-rather-than-less innocent Snape, but doesn't buy the 'fake AK' exculpation for a minute. Too little BANG, and the "wait 'till next book!" cry is becoming passe... From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 19 18:40:37 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:40:37 -0000 Subject: New(?) questions about the Unbreakable Vow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141849 These may not actually be *new* questions about the UV, but even I'm not nuts enough to type "Snape" and "Unbreakable Vow" into the SEARCH box at HPfGU. I mean, I'm sure I'd receive back no less than 60,000 matches since July 19. :-| Anyway... as I re-read Spinner's End last evening, something Snape did really hit me. Looking at p. 32 (US edition), the following occurs: "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it," Narcissa continued, her eyes still closed. "He wishes none to know of the plan. It is... very secret. But?" "If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape at once. "The Dark Lord's word is law." ... But Snape had gotten to his feet and strode to the small window, peered through the curtains at the deserted street, then closed them again with a jerk. He turned around to face Narcissa, frowning. "It so happens that I know of the plan," he said in a low voice. "I am one of the few the Dark Lord has told. Nevertheless, had I not been in on the secret, Narcissa, you would have been guilty of great treachery to the Dark Lord." SSSusan again: Um. What we see here is that Snape at *first* agrees with Bella -- that if Voldy has commanded Narcissa not to speak of the plan, she should not do so. SO IT COULD HAVE ENDED RIGHT THERE. He could have LEFT it at that. Yet Snape peers out the window [hmmm... is something out there?], then turns and BRINGS UP THE TOPIC AGAIN. So, a potentially uncomfortable topic could have been dismissed, and yet Snape ponders for a moment and *elects* to announce, whether he's lying or telling the truth, that "It so happens that I know of the plan," thus opening up a whole can of worms! Why did Snape do this?? Why did he not leave it alone after he'd first said Narcissa should not go against Voldy's wishes, or again, after Narcissa began to speak of the plan, when Snape stated that he would not attempt to dissuade Voldy? I mean, this confession (or lie) that "it so happens that I know of the plan" leads directly to his being asked to take the Unbreakable Vow. And even when the UV was proposed, he *still* could have begged off, by stating again that it would be going against Voldy's orders, would be "great treachery." So again I ask, WHY did Snape reintroduce the subject when it could have possibly been dropped? Why did he not beg off when Narcissa first started speaking of the plan or when the UV was suggested? He had legitimate reasons/excuses to have done so. *Was it the DADA jinx in operation and he couldn't help himself? *Was the UV a total surprise? Or did Snape hope to be able to show his loyalty because he knew Narcissa would ask him to help Draco? Was that his goal but the 3rd vow was a surprise? *Was it part of a plan to do whatever necessary to convince Bella of his loyalty to Voldy? *Was it out of the mistaken belief that the task in question was to kill *Harry*? [Nah, probably have to nix this one, given Snape's remark that if Draco succeeded in the task, it would allow him (Snape) to remain at Hogwarts a little longer. How would killing Harry be related to that?] *Was it because he's ESE! and he wanted to be in on killing DD? *If he's OFH!, wouldn't he have focused *most* on his survival, on remaining neutral or middle-ground, and therefore not have committed to something as risky as a UV? *Was it because, as DDM!, he wanted to make sure he knew the details of any big plan Voldy had, or alternately, wanted to be in a position to watch and perhaps guide Draco? *Was it ACID POPS ? love of Narcissa ? that made him do it? Alright, so a goodly portion of this is definitely not new ground. But does anyone have an answer for the question of WHY Snape paused and then reintroduced a topic he could've let drop? Siriusly Snapey Susan From lealess at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 19:42:56 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:42:56 -0000 Subject: New(?) questions about the Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141850 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SNIP! > > Anyway... as I re-read Spinner's End last evening, something Snape > did really hit me. Looking at p. 32 (US edition), the following > occurs: > > "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it," Narcissa > continued, her eyes still closed. "He wishes none to know of the > plan. It is... very secret. But?" > > "If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape at > once. "The Dark Lord's word is law." > > ... > > But Snape had gotten to his feet and strode to the small window, > peered through the curtains at the deserted street, then closed > them again with a jerk. He turned around to face Narcissa, > frowning. > > "It so happens that I know of the plan," he said in a low > voice. "I am one of the few the Dark Lord has told. Nevertheless, > had I not been in on the secret, Narcissa, you would have been > guilty of great treachery to the Dark Lord." > > ANOTHER SNIP > > So again I ask, WHY did Snape reintroduce the subject when it could > have possibly been dropped? Why did he not beg off when Narcissa > first started speaking of the plan or when the UV was suggested? > He had legitimate reasons/excuses to have done so. lealess: Now that you've quoted the passage, what I noticed was that he said "IF he has forbidden it..." If he knew about the plan, he would have known that talking about it was forbidden. This suggests to me that he did not know about the plan. He may have paused at the curtains to think about what to do next, and then gambled on leading Narcissa into revealing the plan. Why? > > *Was it the DADA jinx in operation and he couldn't help himself? > > *Was the UV a total surprise? Or did Snape hope to be able to show > his loyalty because he knew Narcissa would ask him to help Draco? > Was that his goal but the 3rd vow was a surprise? > > *Was it part of a plan to do whatever necessary to convince Bella > of his loyalty to Voldy? > > *Was it out of the mistaken belief that the task in question was to > kill *Harry*? [Nah, probably have to nix this one, given Snape's > remark that if Draco succeeded in the task, it would allow him > (Snape) to remain at Hogwarts a little longer. How would killing > Harry be related to that?] I would say yes to all of these! If he protected Harry, it may have been because of Harry's being the Chosen One to defeat Voldemort, or out of a remaining obligation to Harry's father (life debt), or out of loyalty to Dumbledore. If Harry was dead, however, Snape would be able to remain at Hogwarts as a spy for Voldemort. With Dumbledore dead, no matter what the circumstances, his usefulness to Voldemort as a spy, and his support at Hogwarts (the staff seemed to distrust him even though Dumbledore vouched for him) or in the Order are less certain. > *Was it because he's ESE! and he wanted to be in on killing DD? > > *If he's OFH!, wouldn't he have focused *most* on his survival, > on remaining neutral or middle-ground, and therefore not have > committed to something as risky as a UV? > Nah... even if ESE or OFH, Snape seems to be someone who needs to know what's going on. It may be a fatal flaw, among others. He spied on the Marauders, he spied on Dumbledore according to Trelawney, he spied on Draco, presumably. He doesn't like to be left out of the loop -- much like Harry. > *Was it because, as DDM!, he wanted to make sure he knew the > details of any big plan Voldy had, or alternately, wanted to be in > a position to watch and perhaps guide Draco? > > *Was it ACID POPS ? love of Narcissa ? that made him do it? > Yes to the first part of the first. The second... I think he and the Malfoys have a special relationship, much broader than love of Narcissa. They probably mentored him as a young man. > Alright, so a goodly portion of this is definitely not new ground. > But does anyone have an answer for the question of WHY Snape paused > and then reintroduced a topic he could've let drop? > I think you've provided many of the answers in one form or another. Thank you! lealess From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 19:46:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:46:14 -0000 Subject: Scrimgeour (Was:CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141851 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > Now *that* is an excellent catch of that similar pattern in the interaction between DD & Fudge and the one between Scrimgeour & the PM. And, while I'm *certain* I didn't catch on to that when I read it, perhaps you've highlighted why I did think Scrimgeour showed promise of competence when we first met him. Because, while it may have been a losing battle to have tried to bring Harry aboard, as I said above, my opinion is that Scrimgeour really *botched* those attempts, too. And Scrimgeour caved to the kind of political pressure/"must stay popular" garbage that Fudge would have done when he arrested people *and kept them detained* just so people couldn't say he wasn't accomplishing anything. > > So, in the end, I agree with you that Fudge and Scrimgeour are quite different, and Fudge's incompetencies are more apparent and possibly more widely spread, but I was still disappointed at where Scrimgeour went in the story, after what felt to me as a fairly promising start. Carol responds: As I said earlier in this thread, Scrimgeour is an ex-Auror and IMO thinks like a tough-minded police captain whose first concern as he enters the Muggle PM's office is security. Collin has nicely illustrated his calculated competence in silencing opposition (in contrast to the "blither[ing] and seeth[ing]" Fudge--I also loved that wording, Collin!). I don't think he's a politician worried about reelection. Ministers for Magic aren't elected, at least by popular vote, IIRC, but he's certainly worried about the MoM's public image (just as a police captain would be worried about his department's image if he wants to keep his job), especially given his predecessor's rather significant oversight regarding the return of You-Know-Who. (OTOH, Fudge does a much better job of communicating with the Muggle PM, a job I'm glad he's retained. I rather liked Fudge in this chapter, in contrast to his depiction in OoP. And he's clearly not a DE, as some posters on this list suspected.) But chapter 1 of HBP is not the first reference to Scrimgeour. Like "young Sirius Black," mentioned by Hagrid in SS/PS, Scrimgeour is mentioned in advance of his appearance in person. (I had a feeling as I read the following passing reference that we'd encounter Scrimgeour again): "Lupin glanced at Harry, then said to Tonks, 'What were you saying about Scrimgeour?' "'Oh . . . yeah . . . well, we need to be a bit more careful, he's been asking Kingsley and me funny questions. . . .'" (OoP Am. ed. 122, ellipses in original). So Scrimgeour, evidently Tonks's and Kingsley's superior at the time of this conversation (right before Harry's trial), is suspicious of their behavior, probably with regard to their knowledge of Sirius Black's whereabouts (Kingsley is in charge of that investigation). Now that Black is known to be both innocent and dead, Kingsley appears to be in Scrimgeour's good graces again, having been placed in the Muggle PM's office as both an aide to him and an informant (not informer!) to Scrimgeour. Dumbledore describes him as a "man of action" (page number upthread?), and I think we'll see more of that aspect of his character in Book 7. It remains to be seen whether he will successfully investigate the Bones and Vance murders, not to mention that of Dumbledore (which will undoubtedly require Harry's testimony)--assuming that he's still more of an Auror than a politician (despite his concern for public image), which is how I see him. Carol, who neither likes nor dislikes Rufus Scrimgeour but thinks there's more to him than meets the eye From hitchyker at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 19:24:29 2005 From: hitchyker at gmail.com (hitchyker42) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:24:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141852 > SSSusan earlier: *snip* > With Scrimgeour, I guess where I find myself questioning his > competence is later on... when, not only does he fail to bring Harry > aboard [and he really *does* muck those attempts up -- Harry sees > right through him], but also when he makes arrests just in order to > be making arrests. He seems to be not only failing to make much > progress, but he's engaging in really inappropriate action in > arresting and *keeping* detained people whom he really should not. > > I definitely class that as a form of incompetence, though perhaps > there is a more appropriate word than that? Collin: I think you're absolutely right about this. Harry very pointedly brings up the subject of Stan Shunpike at his first meeting with Scrimgeour, and Scrimgeour reacts condescendingly to the idea that Harry has actual opinions about what should be done. He dismisses the possibility that Harry actually has an important role to play in the fight against LV. That, I think can be overlooked the first time, but at their second meeting, once Scrimgeour has had his opportunity to assess the situation with Harry, he hasn't changed his approach. He could have used Stan Shunpike's release as an act of diplomacy toward Harry in an attempt to sway him, but he persists instead with an approach that already failed once. (And this time he does it at Dumbledore's *funeral*!) That, I think, is clearly incompetence. If he can't compromise, he's not a very good politician, and his unwavering insistence that he is right in the face of all evidence contrary is very much like Fudge. So basically, Scrimgeour has a cool and capable coating, but a soft Fudgy center! :) Collin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 20:01:43 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:01:43 -0000 Subject: New(?) questions about the Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141853 zgirnius: I'm going to rearrange a bit, since a lot of what I say is in answer to your final question... SSSusan: > Alright, so a goodly portion of this is definitely not new ground. > But does anyone have an answer for the question of WHY Snape paused > and then reintroduced a topic he could've let drop? > zgirnius: I'm glad you asked, because I definitely have an opinion ;-) My theory is that Snape did not know the task. And he was at the time, acting as Dumbledore's spy among hte Death Eaters, so when he heard about a top-secret important plan of hte Dark Loed,he naturally wanted to hear more. Then why cut Narcissa off, you ask? Well, the subject actually came up once before the quotes you supply. Right after Snape, Narcissa, and Bellatrix drink their toast to the Dark Lord. (P. 25, US edition): "You were saying, Narcissa?" She took a great shuddering breath and started again. "Severus, I know I ougth not to be here, I have been told to say nothing to anyone, but-" "Then you ought to hold your tongue!" snarled Bellatrix. "Particularly in present company!" There follows a long digression into how Bella's appraisal of Snape is incorrect, as Snape attempts to explain his numerous past actions to Bellatrix as being simply what any other loyal DE in his position would have done. As Snape himself points out, this is necessary for Snape's purpose (learning what it is exactly Narcissa is supposed to tell noone about), since until Bellatrix is satisfied, she will not let Narcissa get to the point. "Narcissa, I think we ought to hear what Bellatrix is bursting to say; it will save tedious interruptions." Many pages of explanations ensue, at the end of which, Snape *still* has not succeeded. We learn, top of p. 32, that "Bellatrix still looked unhappy, though she appeared unsure how best to attack Snape next." I think Snape believes that any attempt by Narcissa to drop any juicy details of the mysterious thing she is not to discuss with anyone would again result in 'tedious interruptions' by Bella. But in the discussion with her, he has confirmed that she is currently in disfavor to some extabt, so he decides to bluff. He interrupts Narcissa to preempt Bella (and in fact Bella seems pleased for the first time when he does so). He then makes a show of ensuring they are not being watched (again, at least in part for Bella's benefit) before 'revealing' that he already knows the plan. > SSSusan again: > *Was it the DADA jinx in operation and he couldn't help himself? zgirnius: My opinion would be that it may have been affecting his judgement. He thought he saw a clever way out of it, or somethign to that effect. > SSSusan again: > *Was the UV a total surprise? Or did Snape hope to be able to show > his loyalty because he knew Narcissa would ask him to help Draco? > Was that his goal but the 3rd vow was a surprise? zgirnius: Yes, I suspect the UV was a surprise. However, based on Narcissa's previous comments, misjudged the scope of the Vow. He was expecting to be asked to protect Draco. > SSSusan again: > *Was it part of a plan to do whatever necessary to convince Bella > of his loyalty to Voldy? zgirnius: IMO, only in so far as this was necessary to gain her and/or Narcissa's trust to learn more about the plan. > SSSusan again: > *Was it because he's ESE! and he wanted to be in on killing DD? zgirnius: Seems to me that he could be in on that without taking any Vows...but I suppose the DADA curse could mess with the logic of an ESE Snape too. (It does not appear to have done Crouch Jr. any favors...) I accidentally snipped the reference to ACID POPS...this could certainly be a reason to agree to the UV. But I think that the overall reason for the conversation was motivated by 'secret agent' reasons. Which, without that pesky third clause, could be quite compatible with a desire to help out Narcissa and/or Draco. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 19 20:07:01 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:07:01 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141854 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > No perception exists in a vacuum, of course. Do you treat someone > differently if you know, or at least suspect, that they know little > or nothing about their own status? If Snape is Dumbledore's bad cop > who does everything for a reason, surely he would be that well- > informed, or at least not going to take hasty pre-emptive > action...right? I haven't run into the situation yet in my own > classroom, but there are famous people/children thereof enrolled as > undergraduates, and they generally really appreciate being treated as > other students and not being marked out for either acclaim or > opprobrium. So there's not only information, there's what you do > with it. Pippin: There's absolutely no hope of getting Draco or the WW to treat Harry like an ordinary student, no matter what kind of example Snape sets, wouldn't you agree? They don't have the culture of protecting children from celebrity the way we do -- even the tabloids don't treat minors the way the Prophet treated Harry. Even normally level-headed people like Flitwick are falling off their chairs. Nobody knows yet that Harry has a pure soul and couldn't possibly be tempted to embrace the Dark Arts or Draco's Muggle-hating philosophy. It's just as well that Draco's contempt for Harry be encouraged. Nora: > But isn't this a shift for you, Pippin, or am I mistaken in thinking > that you've generally argued that Snape was just acting in the Shack > (as Dumbledore's seekrit agent), and that it was all actually set up > by ESE!Lupin? Not so good a parallel, then. :) > Pippin: You may be confusing ESE!Lupin with MAGIC DISHWASHER. DISHWASHER works better if you postulate ESE!Lupin, but ESE!Lupin doesn't need DISHWASHER to work. Snape and Dumbledore, in my version of events, do not know that Scabbers is Pettigrew and have every reason to believe that Sirius is guilty as charged. I think just about everything Snape does in the Shack is genuine, except for the suspicious quickness with which he loses his temper and his threat to hand Sirius and Lupin straight to the dementors. I've generally contended that Snape was acting when he lost his temper, playing the character of young!Snape who wore his heart on his sleeve and so forth, but I think Snape was genuinely furious with Harry for taking the word of Sirius and Lupin over his, and genuinely impatient with Hermione because she really didn't grasp the situation -- Sirius was supposed to know a spell that will kill everyone within twenty feet of himself, after all. If he gets his hand on a wand, it's all over. So I see Snape as burning for revenge but not beyond reason, exactly as you hope Harry would be. We've got some new canon to contend with. Dumbledore says he watched over Harry from afar as he met Sirius and discovered what he was, and Snape tells Draco that confronting the enemy without backup would be an elementary mistake. Now, did Snape ignore his own advice when he went rushing out to the SS, or did he know that Dumbledore was watching from afar? In that case he could have dragged Lupin and Sirius off to the dementors fully expecting that Dumbledore would 'conveniently' turn up and 'make trouble. ' We also have the additional canon that Voldemort wants something from the castle. Sirius's statement that he'll go quietly as long as he's taken there doesn't sound so reassuring in that light. Pippin From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 19 20:48:02 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:48:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 2. The PM felt like an `ignorant schoolboy.' Is this truly how they > were treating him and if so, how does the condescension of the two > wizards relate to their ostensible leadership of opposition to the > Muggle-hating DEs? Is this condescension symptomatic of their rise > to power or a deeper problem within the wizarding community apart > from LV & co.? Marianne: Oh, yes, I think it is certainly condescension. I can understand the WW's desire to keep their world separate, but Fudge's manner borders on insulting. In the description of the first meeting between Fudge and the PM Fudge rattles on about how difficult his job is to keep the wizard world invisible to non-wizards, and then bascially tells the PM not to worry his little head about it, and completes the pattern by giving him a "fatherly" pat on the shoulder. I wonder if the portrait in the PM's office works both ways. Can the PM use it to summon the Minister of Magic? I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is "no" just because I'd think wizards would be worried that their Muggle counterparts would be constantly trying to make contact to have the wizards take care of things magically. Maybe the PM might have thought a little more deeply about that hurricane. Hurricanes don't spring up overnight. If that's what happened here, it seems quite questionable, meteorologically speaking. > 4. Fudge shows up and tells the PM a bunch of things that he is > powerless to do anything about. Sirius Black's escape is the only > time Fudge requested any help from the PM. There seems to be little > any non-wizard could do about it, and the action provoked criticism > of Fudge in PoA (Ch 3, The Knight Bus). What is the point of > telling the Muggle Prime Minister anything about what is going on in > the WW? Law? (What is the relationship between the WW government > and the Muggle government?) Courtesy? Glaring Incompetence? Marianne: What is the point indeed? My interpretation is that the only reason Fudge told the PM about Black's escape is that he was convinced Sirius would slaughter anyone who got in his way, Muggle or Wizard, on his mission to find and murder Harry. Fudge was not only requesting help in trying to locate Sirius, he might also have been preparing the PM for a sudden swathe of murders that would get the public's attention. As for other things, I really don't know. Is it a courtesy to tell the PM that 3 dragons are being imported? What's he supposed to do with that knowledge? > 5. Fudge says the dementors are breeding, which is causing the > gloomy weather throughout England. We know prior to this the > dementors were guarding Azkaban and working with the Ministry, yet > there was no chilly mist covering the land until now. Why weren't > they breeding before? Ministry controls? An agreement? Marianne: I have no answer why they weren't breeding before, or why they were content to stay on Azkaban rather than running riot through London, feeding on the emotions of millions of people. Who is/was assigned to be the liaison with Dementors? How do they communicate to humans? Do new Dementors just appear fully formed or is there some sort of gestation period? Maybe JKR will provide us with "The Complete Biology of Dementors." > 6. Is "Serious" Black now officially innocent? Marianne: I suppose so, although it seems that this information has not been widely spread throughout the land. Sirius' presence at the battle in the Dept of Mysteries was not mentioned in the news at the end of OoP, so someone hushed that up. Seems quite Fudgian, doesn't it? I can see Fudge not wanting to add to his troubles. What with Vmort's return and DD and Harry being vindicated in the public's eyes, why add to what people see as his incompetence by admitting that an innocent man had been imprisoned for 12 years? It wouldn't matter that Fudge was not the one to send Sirius to Azkaban. He's the one in charge now, and this was just one more thing that was wrong on his watch. So, I think Fudge set the record straight, but did it very quietly. We've never heard any more about the supposed inquiry that Fudge mentioned, either. OTOH, these particular loose Black ends probably have no bearing on the remaining arc of the story, so they're just being checked off JKR's list of questions that still need to be answered. > 8. Who might have cast the poorly performed Imperius Curse? What > makes the curse poorly performed? Was it just sloppy magic, or > function similarly to the other Unforgivables in that you really > have to mean it for it to be successful? Marianne: I didn't pick up on this on the first two reads. It does make one wonder if this person didn't have their heart in it, or if perhaps, they're somewhat new to this Unforgivable stuff and need more practice to get up to snuff. And what made Herbert Chorley, Junior Minister, important enough to be targeted? Question: We know that the MoM has assigned Shacklebolt to guard the PM, much to the PM's surprise. Who, on the Muggle side of things, fixed that? Or did the MoM have to resort to using magic to change records and modify memories so that Shacklebolt's sudden appearance didn't cause any comment? Marianne From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 19 20:57:07 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:57:07 -0000 Subject: Serious or Sirius (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: Marianne: > The pronunciation of Sirius has come up for discussion on some Potter > fanfic sites I visit. From comments I've seen there, Sirius > and "serious" are homonyms for Americans, while there is a slight > difference in pronunciation for Brits, "Sirius" being pronounced with > a somewhat longer "E" sound than in "serious." Geoff: You surely don't mean a /longer/ "e"? You can't really get a longer sound than that in "serious". Anyway, you usually have a short "i" as in "win" or a long "i" as in "wine". Most people I know here in the UK pronounce it with a short "i" as in lizard, Miriam or pit. From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Oct 19 20:46:57 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:46:57 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141857 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > -Nora can see some forms of more-rather-than-less innocent Snape, but > doesn't buy the 'fake AK' exculpation for a minute. Too little BANG, > and the "wait 'till next book!" cry is becoming passe... > Interesting Nora, I'd like to follow this up. Let's assume that there is a mix of Guilt and Innocence in Snape, which is something I could readily believe and it fits well with a general OFH!Snape position. Where would the balance point be? At what point in the spectrum does Snape start being more innocent than guilty? And how could that be done without resorting to unbearably cheesy contrivance like lightning fast legilimency communication or grand consipiracies? Would more innocent Snape require that DD asked Snape to kill him? Would more innocent Snape come from the DADA curse or the needs of the UV? For that matter would more guilty Snape arise from the UV? JKR has said that "Dumbledore is not Jesus," which of course makes you wonder if there is something in DD's character that is meant to suggest Jesus. Jesus gave himself to die willingly, so does that suggest a more innocent Snape? But Jesus was also truly betrayed and delivered to death by one of the his closest circle, so does that imply a more guilty Snape? Andrew Lloyd Webber aside, most people don't consider Judas innocent even if Jesus did over himself up willingly. Anyway, just some musings about the balance of guilt and innocence in Sevvie. Lupinlore From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 21:14:40 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:14:40 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141858 > Jen: Even though I agree with your later point that this passage was > likely about Harry's reaction to Dumbledore's death more than > anything else, I can't understand why it's suddenly inadvisable by > list standards or list rules to form canon in our own image, so to > speak. Why does it matter really? Are we doing a disservice to JKR > who 'loves the theories'? Are we doing a disservice to fellow- > listees who get caught up in a certain phrases like 'peaceful > expression' and later find out that wasn't canon as written? Anyone > at any time can look up the exact canon as you did and say 'hold on' > but it seems your argument is going beyond that, saying we > *shouldn't* be extrapolating anymore. That our texts should always > be by our sides (which mine are btw, and I use quoted canon > frequently) to check and double-check what we say before posting. > Neri: We have a failure in communication, Jen. I'm not authorized or qualified in any way to decide on list policy, and I wouldn't dream doing it. I was merely trying to explain my personal opinion, why it can be helpful, when discussing a literary work, to keep in mind what is actually written and what is assumed by us as readers. I don't have a problem with assumptions and theories and I do it all the time, as you know well. I just said it could be useful to distinguish between the canon and the interpretation. It's just one approach to reading and analysis. I'm sure there are equally viable approaches that don't distinguish between the two at all, and I wouldn't even mind discussing HP with members that employ them, only I'd like to know about their approach in advance to prevent any unpleasant misunderstandings. Neri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 21:33:45 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:33:45 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141859 > truthbeauty1: >Now, I don't know the morality of horcruxes, but it seems that maybe killing a defenseless child would split your soul no matter who it was. Perhaps in this line of thinking, if Voldemort had allowed Harry to grow up on his own and then killed him in battle, it may not have split his soul. a_svirn: You are not talking of any morality here. You are talking of "niceties" of a duelling code. An important matter certainly, but it doesn't really have anything to do with a state of one's soul. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 19 21:32:10 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:32:10 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141860 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: SSSusan: > > I know that the other day, I presented this argument > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141611 : > > > > >>>Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he > > believes to be the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for > > either Harry to kill Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry. He confirms > > this to Harry in OoP, and he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell > > Harry, "Gee, I hate that you > > have to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!" > > In *my* mind, I could easily see the reason that DD does not say > > such a thing to Harry (even when the topic is right there before > > them as they talk about horcruxes!) as that he knows this is WAR, > > this is an issue of The Greater Good. And perhaps he knows or > > suspects that this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul. a_svirn: > I don't know whether the killing of Voldemort would or would not > rip Harry's soul, but I `d like to point out that for Voldemort > it's also the matter of utmost *necessity* to destroy Harry. One > after all can't live if the other survives. Even though Voldemort > know the whole text of the Prophesy its first part is quite > does not sufficient to make Harry's killing the first priority for > him. If *necessary* killings is "permissible" and do not result in > soul-ripping, then the killing of the Potters should have leaved > Voldemort's soul intact. Geoff: Back in message 141613, on the subject of murder, I wrote: 'I think you are quite right here. My dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another". And that is the crux of the matter. Murder is committed by someone with the aim and intent of doing away with someone else. Accidental deaths - which under UK law usually count as manslaughter ? and deaths in battle fall outside this category.' Thinking over this topic, I felt perhaps I should extend the definition as little to be: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another for some personle gain." Murder is usually committed to satisfy some personal need of the perpetrator: getting revenge, getting rid of a rival, covering up another crime to mention but a few.... My thoughts turned to the plot masterminded by Klaus von Stauffenberg and a group of co-conspirators to kill Hitler in July 1944, which sadly failed. This was an attempt at a premeditated killing. But it was not for personal gain. These folk believed that if they could carry out their plan, there would be a possibility that the war might be brought to an end and further loss of life be avoided. If they had succeeded, I doubt whether the world outside Germany would have considered them to be murderers - and possibly a goodly number of Germans would have agreed. Many dictators - Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and, more recently, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein for example - have been responsible for the mass murder of their peoples. They may not have pulled the trigger personally on each killing but it would, to me, fit my extended definition of murder because it was for their own gain - extension of power, elimination of opposition, strengthening of control etc. Again, I think that attempts to remove them for "the greater good" would not be seen in the light of murder by observers. I therefore think that when Harry catches up with Voldemort, although he will have some personal issues to settle, he will in essence be trying to make the wizarding world a better place by removing this tyrant. As a side issue, this raises an interesting metaphysical and spiritual speculation. What determines whether a killing carried out by a wizard constitutes a murder? What decides that this is heinous enough for the culprit's soul to be split? Imagine a scenario where Joe Bloggs kills someone and feels his soul being split and cries out "Hang on a minute. This was a killing for the greater good. I didn't do it for my own satisfaction or gain." And a disembodied voice says "You are right, son. Here's a tube of impact adhesive to stick your soul back together." Seriously though, how are the parameters determined? Is it determined by the murderer's own conscience, knowing whether they killed deliberately or accidentally or in a war situation? Is it settled by how others see it? I would be interested to read the views of other contributors about this. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 19 22:01:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:01:55 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141861 Nora: > > -Nora can see some forms of more-rather-than-less innocent Snape, but doesn't buy the 'fake AK' exculpation for a minute. Too little BANG, and the "wait 'till next book!" cry is becoming passe... Lupinlore: > Interesting Nora, I'd like to follow this up. Let's assume that there > is a mix of Guilt and Innocence in Snape, which is something I could > readily believe and it fits well with a general OFH!Snape position. > Where would the balance point be? At what point in the spectrum does > Snape start being more innocent than guilty? And how could that be > done without resorting to unbearably cheesy contrivance like lightning > fast legilimency communication or grand consipiracies? > Pippin: It never fails--let a contrarian version of canon gain some credibility, and it suddenly becomes not bangy enough. It's a catch-22. But it certainly would be bangy for *Harry* if he found out that Snape didn't off Dumbledore. Supposing that JKR did wish to indicate that the AK was possibly fake and that conspiracy or legilimency between Snape and Dumbledore, unknown to Harry, was a possibility. What more should she have done to suggest this without giving the game away? What I really can't understand about OFH!Snape is that it seems to presume that Snape is somehow less culpable for killing Dumbledore if he did it in pursuit of his own ends than if he did it at Voldemort's orders. And I don't understand that at all. Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 21:46:28 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:46:28 -0000 Subject: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141863 > Christina: > Regardless of whether you love Snape or hate him, he's *good* at > teaching DADA. Goddlefrood replies: I thought the only useful thing Snape taught them was non-verbal spells, and he didn't really teach that did he? He expected people to do it. The rest of what we saw had previously been covered, and in my view quite a lot better than Severus managed it. > Christina: > We know that in VWI, Dumbledore had "a number of useful spies," but there is nothing that suggests that this is the case now. Goddlefrood: Lupin wasn't spying on the werewolves then? I also have certain suspicions regarding Goyle, which I intend to post as a (shortish) article in the future. There is certainly more to come on Dumbledore's spies. Of course it would be the ultimate irony if Pettigrew turned out to be a double agent. This would be, as I believe you might say, out of left field. > Christina > I don't find it a stretch to believe that Snape really *has* been > applying for the job all these years and has been denied it. Goddlefrood: As I said earlier there is plenty to indicate that Snape did not apply. Particularly the events of Harry's fifth year. Do you really think that if Snape had applied Dumbledore would not, however reluctantly, have given him the job, mostly because of his aversion to Ministry interference? > Christina: -- Does Voldemort need Snape in the DADA position? Not really. Goddlefrood: Why are we led to believe that Snape was encouraged by LV to take up the post? As I say in my original article this is perhaps the largest red herring in the series. The main point of my article, and perhaps I should have made it more explicit, is that Snape himself did not really want the job. As an extrapolation from that premise it is not unfair to conclude that Snape only has his own best interests at heart. Phineas Nigellus tells us in Ootp Chapter Twenty Three ? Christmas on the Closed Ward at page 437 "We Slytherin's are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks." Snape's choice is to save his own neck by taking a comfortable backseat. > Christina > Most of the DADA teachers in recent years have stunted the students' education. Goddlefrood: Quirrell is largely an unknown quantity but did teach them about werewolves, one of the few indicators of Quirrell's class is in PS Chapter Thirteen ? Nicolas Flamel, where we are told at page 162: 'Next morning in the Defence Against the Dark Arts, while copying down different ways of treating werewolf bites ' Lockhart was incompetent and was another convoluted plot device in my view. Lupin and fake Moody were certainly quite useful and even Dolores in Ootp in Chapter Twelve - Professor Umbridge, at page 220 says: "I repeat, as long as you have studied the theory hard enough ?" To me this suggests that, other than I grant you Lockhart, each DADA teacher has been quite useful. I, therefore, have to disagree with you on this point. > Christina > ... you offer no canon > whatsoever that even suggests that Snape didn't want the Dark Arts > job. Goddlefrood: Well, that was, after all, the main point of my article. It is the interpretation of what we are given and I find it quite natural that JKR would not want people believeing Snape did not want the DADA job. That would be far too big a clue as to Severus's motives and that would never do. My hope, of course, is that by examining the enigma of Snape we can decipher what he may do next. While I think he is out for himself it is quite possible that Snape will, either inadvertently or otherwise, by of great use in the final anaysis. Regards Goddlefrood From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 22:16:32 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:16:32 -0000 Subject: OFH (Was: Re: Which characters are dynamic?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141864 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > What I really can't understand about OFH!Snape is that it seems to > presume that Snape is somehow less culpable for killing Dumbledore if > he did it in pursuit of his own ends than if he did it at Voldemort's > orders. And I don't understand that at all. As a leading proponent of OFH, let me say: buh? I don't think I've ever suggested such, and I don't recall any argument therefore. What I would say is that it's a different kind of evil for Snape to have killed Dumbledore in pursuit of his own ends than if he did it at Voldemort's orders and with the explicity intention of furthering that cause, rather than his personal benefit. Those two things are also not necessarily mutually exclusive. The end result is the same--dead Dumbledore. But the reasons for doing it are quite different, they speak to different motivations, and I consider both motivation and intention essential to determining the moral tenor of a situation, as do most all modern legal systems. Now, it's actually an interesting question whether (the hypothetical) Voldemort devotee Snape is more or less culpable than self-interested Snape. The latter seems to approach radical evil, while the former has an allegiance to something...except it's a little unclear whether that something is a cause with ideals/principles, or the ideal of radical evil itself (which Voldemort seems to be a good representative of). Different outcome depending on which ethical system we plug our data into. Alas. -Nora notes that, of course, there are moral systems which don't consider intention a component of ethics... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 22:17:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:17:42 -0000 Subject: How good Dumbledore is?/NECESSITY of killing/ What would DD want? (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141865 > KJ writes: > Some of us see a different Dumbledore than the others. JKR is > obviously making some points about "Nobody is all good or all bad." When > she suggests that Dumbledore is the epitome of good, I think we have to > watch out a little bit. Alla: I think JKR meant exactly what she said, frankly - that Dumbledore is an epitome of goodness - she did not say that Dumbledore is a saint, right? So, he makes mistakes, and as I argued previously some big ones, but I think he had a good geart. I am not trying to convince you of the opposite, but do want to challenge your examples of I guess Dumbledore not being so good, or Puppetmaster! Dumbledore. (if that is not you meant, I apologize) But of course I am biased on that matter, since I really, really, really do not like Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. KJ: > 1. He gives Harry an invisibility cloak Alla: Why this is an example of Bad!Dumbledore? If your answer is that he encourages Harry to break the rules, my argument would be that JKR actually praises breaking the rules for higher moral purpose in our case saving the world. KJ: > 2. He has the Slytherin banners up at the year end feast and then shoots > the Slyths down in flames. That was mentioned by several posters to be > cruel. Why not leave the walls blank until the final points were given? Alla: Hmm, this had been debated multiple times in the past, so I am glad that you only brought up the giving points on the feast, NOT the idea that Trio does not deserve the points they got. Because I think that for fighting Voldie they deserved all the points they got and more. I don't know why he did that. Maybe because he wanted to praise Trio in front of the school and did not have the chance to do it earlier. I am also not buying " Dumbledore biased against poor Slyths" argument ( I know you did not raise it, just saying it in advance), because the fact that before Harry came to school Slytherins won the Cup SEVEN years in a row makes me doubt that they could do it with Headmaster of the school being biased against them. KJ: > 3. He allows Snape to torment Harry. Alla: Yeah, it seems like he does, BUT is it possible that he hopes that Snape will figure out things on his own ( just like JKR said that Dumbledore did not go to Hagrid thinking that Hagrid comes out of his home on his own). KJ: > 4. He sends Snape back to Voldemort knowing he could be killed, and > expecting he will be interrogated rather nastily. Alla: Does he? Or maybe "if you are ready, if you are prepared" means to be taken literally and Dumbledore again lets Snape make his own choice? I tend to think that, but I also think that even if Dumbledore decided to call in the favor because he shielded Snape from the Law for thirteen years, that would be not that bad. Snape deserved Azkaban, IMO, Dumbledore helped him escaped it by vouching for him. Yes, I think Snape owes Dumbledore BIG time, BUT I also think that it is OOC for Dumbledore to force Snape to do anything. KJ: > 5. His protection of Harry at the Triwizard tournament left something to > be desired. He knew there was something being planned. Alla: Personally I think Dumbledore was careless here, BUT I also think that argument that there was nothing he could do is strong (binding contract and all that) Are you talking about protection during the Tournament or protection against Fake!Moody, because DD did not have a clue about Moody being Crouch till Harry returned from Graveyard, as far as I can remember. KJ: > 6. There was the ever famous gleam when he heard that Voldemort had used > Harry's blood. Alla: Yes, and JKR said that it is still VERY important and we will know about that. I believe that Dumbledore figured that it would help Harry survive and dispose of Volemort at the same time, but JMO of course. KJ: > 7. There was his complete avoidance of Harry throughout OotP when all he > had to do was send Harry a note saying that he would explain later. Alla: And he said that it was a mistake. The bottom line in all those accidents you site I just don't see malicious manipulation on Dumbledore's part, just the shortcomings of the old man, who stands so far above the "normal people" with his wisdom that he does not check his decisions with somebody else, but himself and that is bound to bring disasters sometimes, IMO. KJ: > 8. I like his answer to Harry when he asked if learning about Tom Riddle > would help him to survive. Dumbledore said that he hoped it would help > him to survive. Not a real confidence builder in my opinion. Alla: I LOVED his answer too, but for a different reason. I saw that Dumbledore LEARNED from his mistakes in OOP and was being truthful with Harry. He is not G-d, so he cannot be sure that Harry survives, but he hopes so. KJ: > Particularly since he got teary in OotP over the chance of Harry's > unhappiness. He seems to handle Harry's potential death much better. Alla: I don't see how "and I certainly hope that it will help you to survive" - HBP, p.198 translates into Dumbledore " handling Harry's potential death" All I can see is Dumbledore encouraging Harry to survive. KJ: > 9. Forces Harry to pour poison down his gullet in HBP. Alla: He did of course KJ: > 10. Lays a huge guilt trip on Harry for not busting his arse getting him > Slughorn's memories. In fact, he sounded a bit like Snape for a while there. Alla: Oh? I thought he sounded so very UNLIKE Snape here. He did not scream at Harry, he did not brought up James, he did not humiliate Harry. He indeed put a guilt trip on Harry, BUT as far as I can see this guilt trip was absolutely deserved. For al intents and purposes Dumbledore gave Harry homework and Harry did not do it. I don't remember ONE incident in the books, when Snape successfully managed to put a guilt trip on Harry. If anything, Snape manages to alienate Harry more and more. I thought that Dumbledore sounded exactly like Remus when he scolded Harry for going to Hogsmeade. Which was such a nice contrast - how nicely Remus's scolding worked and Snape did not. ( Your parents gave your life for you, such a poor way to repay them for their sacrifice - paraphrasing POA) KJ: > > All in all, how can anyone think for a minute that Dumbledore would > stick at a little thing like asking someone to risk splitting his soul. Alla: I can think of it more than for a minute actually. :-) KJ: He is not just a sweet little old wizard! Alla: No, he is not, but to me asking some to rip their soul means that DD is Manipulator with a capital M when I am in most charitable mood and I don't see him that way. SSSusan; > > > I know that the other day, I presented this argument > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141611 : > > > > > > >>>Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he > > > believes to be the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for > > > either Harry to kill Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry. He confirms > > > this to Harry in OoP, and he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell > > > Harry, "Gee, I hate that you > > > have to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!" Alla: Hee, not trying to convince you or anything since we talked about it many times both on list and off, just trying to explain why I so don't see Dumbledore asking someone to rip their soul again. The example which you gave is very different from anything else to me, simply because it is a clear self-defense, IMO and even though I am inclined to read the metaphor " murder hurts your soul" in the broadest possible sense, I am inclined to either exclude self- defense from it completely or say that even if self-defense killing hurts your soul, it would be easily mended, as Debbie speculated in her earlier post (that souls cold be healed) If Harry does not kill Voldemort ( I am pretty convinced that he would dispose of Voldie in a different way, but Harry does not yet), well, then Harry is dead. I think that DD line of thinking is that since it is self defense, Harry soul will not be hurt or something like this SSSusan: And perhaps he knows or > > > suspects that this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul. Alla: Yes, because it is self defense, IMO, but I don't see how situation on the Tower could be called self-defense. > Geoff: >> I therefore think that when Harry catches up with Voldemort, although > he will have some personal issues to settle, he will in essence be > trying to make the wizarding world a better place by removing this > tyrant. Alla: Agreed. Geoff: > As a side issue, this raises an interesting metaphysical and > spiritual speculation. What determines whether a killing carried out > by a wizard constitutes a murder? What decides that this is heinous > enough for the culprit's soul to be split? Alla: Well, my speculation is that everything but self-defense hurts your soul, but that is just speculation of course. > Hickengruendler: In a scene, by the way, in which he told Harry, that he destroyed the Philosopher's Stone, therefore basically sacrificing his old friend Nicholas Flamel (of course with Flamel's agreement) to make sure that the stone will never get into Voldemort's hand. This does IMO seem to imply, that Dumbledore is not totally against sacrificing a human life, if it helps the greater good. Alla: That is IMO the only example in canon which MAY support the idea that Dumbledore may sacrifice human life for the greater good, EXCEPT that IMO it does not. :-) Dumbledore does not say that he destroyed he Stone when he talks to Harry. He says "As for the stone, it had been destroyed" - PS/SS, p.297, paperback, which IMO may mean that Stone was destroyed in the battle and Dumbledore had nothing to do with it. BUT even if he did destroy the Stone, I think that "Well, Nicholas and I have had a little chat, and agreed that it is all for the best" - p.297, may support the interpretation that Flanels were going to choose their great adventure soon anyways and they just made their choice faster. > Elyse: We do not know for sure that every murder splits the soul and > until this is proven beyond a doubt, I would not call this canon. Alla: Well, it is your right of course, but I think " Killing rips the Soul" - HBP, p.498 IS canon. We do interpet that not every killing may rip the soul ( Personally as I said earlier, I may very hesitantly exclude self-defense, or maybe not even that, just that after self-defense killing soul heals faster, but IMO it is canon. JMO of course, Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 22:34:54 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:34:54 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_=93peaceful_expression=94=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141866 On the beach of Theory Bay, Neri sits on a large cannon engraved with the words "The Missing 5 Hours" and considers Potioncat's words. > "No, and I don't plan to," She answers. "You may recall that not too > long along I congratulated you because your ideas about Snape's delay > had taken on canon-like status among some of the list members? > "But it's not at all unusual for a post to begin with, 'Remember when > Snape postponed informing the Order' and then adding some thoughts > based on that theory. Now, perhaps the writer knows they're adding to > an interpretation, or perhaps by now, the writer has forgotten that > it is interpretation. Or the person reading the post may not have > been around when the discussion first occurred." Neri: You know, Potioncat, this is indeed something I wanted to ask you the previous time you congratulated me on the canon-like status of Snape's delay. I'd really love to be such an influential member as you present me, but unfortunately I must confess that I never came across all those posters that regard Snape's delay as canon. So I've just ran a search in Yahoomort for "snape" and "delay" (I must commend Yahoo for the new summaries with the searched words bolded, which makes such projects much easier). In order not to risk missing any of my devoted admirers I also ran separately "snape" and "postpon"; "snape" and "stall". The results were, ahem, slightly disappointing. I found maybe 20 posts or so arguing *against* Snape delaying since the original thread. I also found several of my own posts, mainly answering the opposing posts. I found all of 8 posts by 5 members total, other than myself, that argued *for* Snape delaying, and none of them present it in a way that might be mistaken for a canon fact. Some of them write "I agree with these arguments" and the like. Some ask "did Snape stall?" and note that the time difference looks suspicious. None of them uses Snape's delay as a given for supporting an ESE!Snape theory, or any other theory. Now, if I somehow missed all those list members that take my word for canon, can you please please point me to them, so I can properly gloat about it? I promise to send each of them a personal e-mail explaining that Snape's delay isn't canon. But only after a proper gloating . > Potioncat waves toward the bay and Neri sees a small version of a > Viking ship in the middle of the bay. The ship is draped in black and > contains a bier. "I give you SLEEP. Sleeping Leader Enjoys Eternal > Peace." > Neri: I always welcome another ship in the Bay. The more the merrier. Of course, I might try a few shots at it in the future. > Potioncat: > "Now, how about a name for Snape's delay?" Neri: Oh gee, it takes me months to come up with an acronym. I think I like "The Missing 5 Hours" best. You see, this isn't really a theory but an observation, like the famous Missing 24 Hours, regarding a suspicious timing hole in the plot. As I recently wrote, JKR might as well leave it as is, or plug it with some excuse, or she might give it a role in the plot. But the hole is there regardless. We can also continue to argue (and I'm sure we will) what Snape did about it, and should he have done more, but this isn't a theory too, it's an argument. So I prefer The Missing 5 Hours. Wasn't it you who originally coined it? You were always good at this stuff. Neri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 22:40:12 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:40:12 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141867 > Geoff: > Thinking over this topic, I felt perhaps I should extend the > definition as little to be: > "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another for some > personle gain." a_svirn: I would leave out "unlawful". God knows how many atrocities were committed and how many innocent people butchered in the name of the Law. > Geoff: > > > Many dictators - Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and, more recently, Idi > Amin and Saddam Hussein for example - have been responsible for the > mass murder of their peoples. They may not have pulled the trigger > personally on each killing but it would, to me, fit my extended > definition of murder because it was for their own gain - extension of > power, elimination of opposition, strengthening of control etc. > Again, I think that attempts to remove them for "the greater good" > would not be seen in the light of murder by observers. > a_svirn: Depends on observers. Most of them at the time when these attempts were made were actually quite indignant on behalf of their beloved tyrants. In fact, quite a few punitive campaigns were launched in order to find and punish all the culprits and nip any other such attempts in the bud. Also, I for one have a constitutional dislike of this "the Greater Good" thing. A very slippery concept and one open to endless interpretations. Take Draco, for instance, I don't think he would phrase it quite like that, but he certainly believed himself to be in the right when he entered Voldermot's service. So undoubtedly did Regulus. He might well have killed lots of muggles and muggle-borns for all we know and all for the Greater Good's sake. For what could have possibly been his personal gain? Money and power at least his family had in abundance. I am not saying that world wouldn't be a better place without hitlers or torkvemadas, but I don't think it's fair to confuse necessity and morality. If you are prepared to kill for the Greater Good's sake you will kill whenever you deem it necessary; if you are in a flutter about the state of your soul you won't. It's my sincere belief, however, that you can't have it both ways. a_svirn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 23:05:20 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:05:20 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141868 > Lupinlore: >Let's assume that there > is a mix of Guilt and Innocence in Snape, which is something I could > readily believe and it fits well with a general OFH!Snape position. That made me think what sort of mix would fit the two other Snape readings. For ESE Snape certainly "Crime and Prejudice" would suit best, but what for DDM Snape? "War and Sensibility" or simply undiluted "Persuasion"? a_svirn From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 20 01:20:53 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:20:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The dynamic Snape (was: Twist JKR? )/ Which characters are dynamic? References: Message-ID: <012a01c5d514$841136b0$7e80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 141869 >> >>Hickengruendler (post #141769): >> >> But is this the same as dynamic? Sure, McGonagall behaves >> differently according who is around her, but don't we all? She >> doesn't develop over the course of the books. >> > > Betsy Hp: > Hmmm. I seem to be operating under a completely different definition > of dynamic than Nora and Hickengruendler (and Alla and Lupinlore, I'm > guessing). You all seem to expect some sort of huge change within > the character in order to define that character as dynamic. In which > case, Hickengruendler is right. Few of the Potterverse characters > are dynamic. Including Harry, Ron and Hermione. Even Neville is > still quiet and unassuming with no close friends. Magpie: You know, I really don't think most of the characters change and develop in the way that's being described as dynamic. Part of the appeal of the books, I suspect, is the familiarity of the characters. It's more, imo, that all the characters tend to be based aruond a conflict, for lack of a better word, and they're most themselves when they're facing that conflict. This is why I'm surprised when people describe, say, Neville as having "developed" in Book V, when he gets the exact same story in book V as he did in Book I: He's very timid, but when he sees something he sees as Right he makes himself do something really brave, be it standing up to the Trio, throwing himself on Ron and Draco, or fighting at the MoM. Hermione is a stickler for the rules until they conflict with her greater ideas of How Things Should Be, and then she breaks them--this happens over and over. Ron goes through a whole story to gain confidence at Quidditch in OotP and then in HBP he's back with the confidence problems. I would assume that Snape, like Sirius and Lupin, also has his thing he keeps doing over and over. It's possible we just don't see it exactly what that thing is from our pov. He could, for instance, keep trying to be the man he wants to be and keep failing when faced with demons from his past in the form of Harry or Sirius or whoever. I don't think learning that was the ultimate answer to Snape would make him any more flat than many other characters, though it wouldn't make him the most complex either. It might make him more interesting if we find out that his constant belittling of Harry has something a little more interesting behind it from his pov. -m From anandini77 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 19 20:55:20 2005 From: anandini77 at hotmail.com (Anandini) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:55:20 -0000 Subject: Department of Mysteries revisited Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141870 I'm still wondering about the locked room in the Dept of Mysteries (which we all assume is love, I think) and how that is going to play into the final book ... Any theories? Anandini From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Oct 20 02:16:33 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:16:33 -0000 Subject: New(?) questions about the Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141871 SSSusan again: > Um. What we see here is that Snape at *first* agrees with Bella -- > that if Voldy has commanded Narcissa not to speak of the plan, she > should not do so. SO IT COULD HAVE ENDED RIGHT THERE. He could have > LEFT it at that. > [...] > Why did Snape do this?? houyhnhnm: This switch is what convinced me that Snape did not know about the plan (or maybe he knew that Voldemort was up to something, but he'd not been able to discover what) ----------------------------------------------- "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it," [...] "If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape at once. "The Dark Lord's word is law." ----------------------------------------------- In between Narcissa's statement and Snape's response, Bellatrix interjects: "Then you ought to hold your tongue," snarled Bellatrix. "Particularly in present company!" I don't see Snape as having any kind of plan in this scene. He's just dealing with one threat at a time and looking for opportunities. First, it is the presence of Wormtail he must turn to good account. It's got to look suspicious that the wizard who brought LV back to life is living in Snape's house and listening at keyholes. So he solves that threat by brow-beating Wormtail into the role of a servant. Then before he can begin to find out why Narcissa is there, Bellatrix, in effect, accuses him of being a traitor. He throws the accusation back at both of them to put them on the defensive (the better to be manipulated). All the time he's thinking that here's the closest he gotten to information that may be of dire consequence. How can he work it? ----------------------------------------------- But Snape had gotten to his feet and strode to the small window, .... He turned around to face Narcissa, frowning. "It so happens that I know of the plan," he said in a low voice. "I am one of the few the Dark Lord has told. Nevertheless, had I not been in on the secret, Narcissa, you would have been guilty of great treachery to the Dark Lord." ----------------------------------------------- He goes to the window to compose face and mind for the lie, and repeats his counter-accusation for good measure to keep both women on the defensive and therefore unable to observe/question his behavior too closely. In "Spinner's End", we get to see Spy!Snape in action for the first time. He's good. He can think fast on his feet, turn on a dime. He was probably congratulating himself on his own cleverness at the very moment when Narcissa broached the Vow. From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 02:27:42 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:27:42 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141872 Hello, everyone-- I'm a long lapsed hanger-out at this site. Now that the smoke from all those canons going off has cleared, I have a Grand Unified Snape Theory to propose. I've had a look through the post HBP posts (as much as I could manage, anyways!) and couldn't find a similar one, so here goes my little dingy. Be kind! First, for the record, I'm firmly a DDM!Snapist, primarily for reasons of genre-- HP being a combination sudden twist!! mystery story, a Power of Love growing-up story, and a mistaken perceptions drama, I just don't see it ending with such a pivotal character fullfilling a routine scapegoat function. So starting from that standpoint, I've been trying to come up with something tidy and melodramatic and bangy, as they say, to explain: -- Snape and Dumbledore's disagreement about the DADA job. -- Snape's taking the Unbreakable Vow -- the curse on the DADA job -- Dumbledore's belief in Snape's remorse -- the heated conversation overheard by Hagrid, about Snape not wanting to fulfill his promise and feeling overworked -- JKR's interview answer that D-dore was worried that the DADA job would "bring out the worst" in Snape --and lastly, Dumbledore's pleading with Snape the moment he showed up on the tower. First: I think it's definitely important that Snape applies for the DADA job repeatedly. It's the first thing we're told about him, and JKR re-plugs this piece of information nearly every time she introduces Snape in each book. To be honest I was sure, before OoP, that this was a rumour. But it seems it's not. So what' s up? And why did Snape and D-dore disagree about the issue? The 'relapsed addict' theory of why D-dore wouldn't give him the job is clearly silly. Dumbledore is trusting Snape to infiltrate the Death Eaters. Obviously that would involve a great deal more temptation than teaching countercurses to a load of schoolkids. And what's to prevent Snape fiddling with Dark spells after-hours, with or without the DADA job? No, D-dore says he "trusts Snape absolutely", and that's flatly incompatible with "but I'm worried that he's Go Evil if allowed near textbooks on Hinkypunks". In any event, we don't NEED any other theories about why D-dore didn't want to give Snape the job: there was a Curse on it. It is in fact, a rather specific curse, if you take a little time to break down the history of it. All the DADA teachers have had double lives, or some sort of disconnect between their public and private persona. They have, in fact, been Jeckyll-and-Hydes. Quirrel, Lupin, and Moody had literally two natures in one body; Lockhart was a fraud; Umbrige was described by JKR as "poisoned honey"-- a sweet exterior and deadly interior. Snape was a double-agent. When the curse kicks in, the result is always the same: catastrophic exposure of the victim's hidden dark side. Snape fits the pattern perfectly. I suspect D-dore knew the result of the curse was that Snape would be exposed as a Death Eater spy. He was only finally given the job when his position was already badly compromised and Dumbledore had taken a serious injury, so they were aware that the end-game was coming. So, Dumbledore's end is pretty straightforward. But what's Snape's angle? My theory is: Snape didn't want the DADA job, he wanted the DADA curse. Taking the job means leaving Hogwarts by the end of the year, which is what he really wants. But I don't think that's all he wants. Because you don't just have a nice farewell drink down the pub and move on to better things; it's a CURSE. I'm thinking of the scene that Hagrid overheard. Hagrid described it as "heated", and describes Dumbledore twice as "angry". CAPSLOCK Snape I can picture but Dumbledore visibly angry? Angry at Snape for "not wanting to do it anymore". It takes a lot to get Dumbledore riled up-- and he gets very emotional about Snape again on the tower, when he's pleading. "Severus... please...". It's melodramatic, but I'm buying stock in Suicidal!Snape. Dumbledore was angry because Snape wanted to quit, not just the spying, but EVERYTHING. Because he can't quit spying, he can only go on or die. I don't think its a new thing. I think the application for DADA job every year was Snape saying, "I just want to wrap this whole mess up and check out", and Dumbledore's reply was, "Nope. One more year." And I think the whole little game started back in the day, the day when Snape spun his tale of 'deepest remorse'. Why did Dumbledore believe him? Because Snape was trying to kill himself at the time, that's why. He was on the ledge, and Dumbledore talked him down, by telling him that he had to at least do what he could to make amends first. And I think he extracted a promise not to take his own life directly. My feeling of how this played out in HBP is this: when Snape took the UV, he was hoping to some extent to force D-dore's hand. If he Vowed to do something really awful, he would HAVE to die. I think he was quite grimly pleased with himself and told D-dore directly what he had done, and that's why the headmaster relented and appointed him to the DADA post, because one way or another everything was bound to hit the fan that year. The thing about curses, though, is that they have a way of biting you on the behind.... because the way the curse DID wind up working, is creating nearly the only scenario where Snape HAS to keep going. Which takes us to the Tower. In my opinion, the end of the argument overheard by Hagrid was that Dumbledore blindsided Snape by proposing that he actually go through with the Vow and kill him (as Hagrid reports, that he's promised he would do it, so he would do it); and Snape absolutely, CAPSLOCKLY, refused (sounded a little overworked...). But when Snape arrives at the top of the tower, the circumstances were extraordinary-- D-dore disarmed, DE's everywhere, Draco frozen. If Snape broke the Vow, he would have dropped dead Heroically, as he had planned, and been noble and everything-- but then Fernir would have killed D-dore, and V-mort would have killed Draco and his entire family, and the DE's would have run amuk in the school, and so on. Dumbledore saw the whole picture, but I think he still honestly didn't think Snape would go through with it. Hence the pleading that started without any transition the moment Snape arrived. And thus the Curse had it's little game, because Snape would much, MUCH rather have died than do what he did-- it was the ultimate what is right vs. what is easy choice. The final coat of paint on my jolly-boat is that I think All Will Be Revealed in Book VII via Hagrid's conveniently overheard memory, now in Techni-Pensive-O-Vision. And THAT, my dears, is what JKR meant by saying that Dumbledore didn't give Snape the DADA job because he feared it would bring out the worst in Snape. As for why Snape was suicidal-- because he caused the endangerment and death of the woman he loved of course. But that's another theory... Sorry about the weird fontage... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 20 02:50:37 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:50:37 EDT Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20Interpretation=20(was=20Re:=20Dumbledore's=20"?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9Cpeaceful=20expression=E2=80=9D=3F=20?= Message-ID: <88.31ad8e70.30885ffd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141873 Neri: The 5 hrs *difference* between the time Umbridge took Harry and Hermione to the forest and the time of the Order members breaking into the DoM ? this time difference *is* canon. It might be a flint, and in that case it's flinty canon, like Bill and Charlie's ages. It might actually be only 4 hrs (or it might be 6 hrs), but there *is* certainly several hours difference, corroborated not by one but many canon details that fit quite well together. You can't make this time difference disappear unless you make totally absurd assumptions, such as dinnertime at Hogwarts only 3 hrs before first light of dawn, or the battle between the Order and the DEs taking 4 hrs. Snape's *delay* during that period is, indeed, an interpretation, and I never pretended it's canon. The problem is that, out of these several hours of difference, what isn't Snape's delay must be the Order's delay. So you basically have to choose what you believe ? that Snape delayed, or that Sirius, Lupin, Moody, Tonks and Shaklebolt delayed. Interestingly no one, not even the most devoted Snape fans, ever tried convincing me it's the second possibility. Dumbledore "peaceful expression" is a different kind of interpretation. It's not a situation in which you have to choose between two assumptions, one of which is very problematic or totally absurd. It's a choice between two assumptions that are, from the outset, equally probable, and the only criterion for choosing between them is the sentence "Dumbledore's eyes were closed; but for the angle of his arms and legs he might have been sleeping". Julie: Oddly, I think it's just the opposite ;-) Starting with the "missing 5 hours," it is there as canon if you do the math, in the same way that several other math-based inconsistencies are there (like Bill and Charlie's ages). But within canon there is NO later reference to validate any plot significance. Dumbledore never brings it up, no one ever does, not then and not later (a later possibility being one of the Order--say McGonagall--commenting after Snape has killed Dumbledore, "I always wondered why it took Snape so long to summon the Order to the Department of Mysteries. He must have done it on purpose, to help Voldemort get to Harry!" or some such.) Neither does Snape mention it at a time he might be expected to, during his self-defense speech to Bellatrix ("I also delayed the Order's arrival at the Department of Mysteries. It's not my fault you and the others couldn't do your part before the Order arrived"). Given that lack of evidence of any deliberate delay on the part of Snape, the most *likely* conclusion is that the inconsistency was unintentional, a simple maths error on the part of JKR. Not the only conclusion, mind you, but the most likely conclusion. When it comes to Dumbledore's expression, you're right that canon simply states that he's looks like he's sleeping. But canon also adds that Harry straightens Dumbledore's glasses and contemplates his face. When someone looks like they're sleeping, it generally implies a peaceful or composed expression (and looking years younger, as the face is relaxed, with worry lines erased). It doesn't *have* to mean that, but it is by far the most common interpretation. And if Harry saw something in Dumbledore's face to indicate less than that peaceful or composed expression, he certainly would have made note of it. Ergo, it's a fairly straightforward deduction that Dumbledore in death did appear quite peaceful. The assumption comes more in theorizing *why* he looks peaceful, whether it's simply because his death didn't hurt/released his pain, or because he died content that he'd accomplished his objectives and was satisfied with his life and manner of death. I theorize the latter, but until we read Book 7 and discover what was really going on on the Tower, it's only theory ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 03:08:15 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:08:15 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141874 > Sydney wrote: > It's melodramatic, but I'm buying stock in Suicidal!Snape. Dumbledore was angry because Snape wanted to quit, not just the spying, but EVERYTHING. Because he can't quit spying, he can only go on or die. I don't think its a new thing. I think the application for DADA job every year was Snape saying, "I just want to wrap this whole mess up and check out", and Dumbledore's reply was, "Nope. One more year." And I think the whole little game started back in the day, the day when Snape spun his tale of 'deepest remorse'. Why did Dumbledore believe him? Because Snape was trying to kill himself at the time, that's why. He was on the ledge, and Dumbledore talked him down, by telling him that he had to at least do what he could to make amends first. And I think he extracted a promise not to take his own life directly. > > My feeling of how this played out in HBP is this: when Snape took the UV, he was hoping to some extent to force D-dore's hand. If he Vowed to do something really awful, he would HAVE to die. I think he was quite grimly pleased with himself and told D-dore directly what he had done, and that's why the headmaster relented and appointed him to the DADA post, because one way or another everything was bound to hit the fan that year. The thing about curses, though, is that they have a way of biting you on the behind.... because the way the curse DID wind up working, is creating nearly the only scenario where Snape HAS to keep going. zgirnius: I'm not ready to come aboard the dinghy, but *this* one piece of the theory is extremely elegant. IMO, it is a mistake for any flavor of Snape (DDM, OFH, ESE, etc.) to take the Unbreakable Vow. Why? Because it limits his options. If he wants to kill Dumbledore, it takes away his freedom to pick his opportunity. If he doesn't, obviously, the UV is problematic. But if he *wants* to die, what better reason? Take a UV to do something impossible/unthinkable, and presto! > Sydney wrote: > Which takes us to the Tower. In my opinion, the end of the argument overheard by Hagrid was that Dumbledore blindsided Snape by proposing that he actually go through with the Vow and kill him (as Hagrid reports, that he's promised he would do it, so he would do it); and Snape absolutely, CAPSLOCKLY, refused (sounded a little overworked...). zgirnius: You don't really say...why would Dumbledore suggest this? Are you supposing (as some have suggested) that he's slowly dying of the blackened arm? Or do you have some other reason in mind? This is the part I'm skeptical about. > Sydney wrote: > The final coat of paint on my jolly-boat is that I think All Will Be Revealed in Book VII via Hagrid's conveniently overheard memory, now in Techni-Pensive-O-Vision. zgirnius: I also really like the idea that the overheard conversation could be viewed in a Pensieve using the memory of Hagrid. It would be hard to see how to get this memory from Snape at this point. But Hagrid's memory might also work, even though he did not apparently hear the whole thing. This would be just like Harry listening in to the Marauders' conversation in Snape's memory from OotP. Since Snape was sitting some ways away from them apparently unaware of their proximity as he went over his test, he also presumably does not have conscious memories of the things Harry was able to see and hear. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 03:20:21 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:20:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's mistakes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141875 > Elyse: Dumbledore was no psychiatrist either. How could he > possibly know the terrible things that this child *might* do ten or > twenty years in the future? Even DD says himself: > "Did I know then that I had met the most dangerous Dark wizard of > all time? No I had no idea he was to grow up to be what he is." > (pg 258 in my book) Alla: IF Dumbledore indeed knew nothing of what Tom already had done, that would be a different story, but the problem is - he did. Of course, not that he had done as much harm at elven as he did as Lord Voldemort, but he knew what Tom did to those three chidren and he WAS concerned about it. Elyse: > And what could he have possibly done about it if he knew? He wasnt > the headmaster, he wasnt the minister for magic, and I'm guessing > these are only people with the power to deny a wizard child the > privilege of education. And if he had not allowed Tom Riddle to > enter Hogwarts, he would have been a Dark wizard running amok in the > Muggle world, which would surely have been more dangerous. Alla: I think I already said what I think Dumbledore should have done , if indeed he decided to let Tom come to Hogwarts ( and you are right, it maybe not up to him, but since Mcgonagall signs welcoming letters and checks the book where magical childs names are written, maybe it was up to him too. Of course I am only speculating that he was Deputy Headmaster at the moment) Dumbledore should have told SOMEBODY about his suspicions and if he did not want publickly embarass Tom, well, to say couple of quiet words to his Head of the House would have been enough, IMO. > Elyse: Oh I have to disagree with you here! I dont think Dumbledore > would let his personal trust or belief in others interfere with the > safety of his students. I think this is more than evident from the > scene in HBP: > Harry says something along the lines of :"You're leaving the school > tonight and I'll bet you havent even considered that Snape and > Malfoy might decide to-" > And *this* is the point where DD becomes angry. Harry feels he has > crossed an invisible line. And DD says: > "Please do not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students > seriously, Harry" > And hey, if he says that to his favourite boy, the Chosen One who > he cares so much for, I say thats what he would have said to us too. Alla: Erm... If I am still not clear enough, I think that what Dumbledore said and what Dumbledore does are two different things sometimes, as in that situation you quoted. He surely wishes to do the best job he can, but IMO he is so not up to the task sometimes ( safety wise) Dumbledore THOUGHT he knew what Draco was up to, and he paid no attention whatsoever to Harry's warnings. Result? Draco repairing the cabinet and letting DE into school. Dumbledore WAS surprised by Dark Mark, so I hope you are not arguing that he wanted DE to get into Hogwarts, but the fact and the matter - they did. This is a great example of major flaw ( sort of) I see in Dumbledore - he is too wise for his own good. H > Elyse: Heh Heh, this is so hilariously funny. All the time DD was > screaming himself hoarse about how he trusted Severus Snape > completely, it was only after his death that it was revealed how > little they trusted Snape all these years. It seems, judging from > his reaction, that Hagrid was the only one who really accepted DD's > second-hand trust. Alla: But they DID accepted Dumbledore second hand trust and they did trust Snape second handedly, and they would have been continued doing so, had Snape not murdered t he person ,who insisted that they should trust Snape, IMO. Elyse: > But how many people would have really accepted > DD's claims that this nice quiet sweet intelligent boy was really a > psychopath? > They would have said the same stuff the Snape haters have done for > all this time, and simply thrown his hands into the air and > gone "You know what, the old man is Wrong! He's getting old, and in > the matter of his prejudice towars that lovely boy, well his > judgement is just a little biased thats all." > Thats is after all what Snape haters keep harping on. I'm sure it > would have been the same if he declared to the teachers that Riddle > was evil. Alla: I do not follow you, sorry. What are you basing your assumption on that if Dumbledore told the teachers that Tommie Riddle is a child who needs to be watched after, a psychopath in making, they would not listened to him. As I said above - all teachers tolerated Snape ONLY because Dumbledore said so, IMO and the only reason they thought that Dumbledore was wrong, well, because Snape killed him. I think it is a huge show of trust that they accepted Snape as colleague based on Dumbledore's word only. Do you have canon showing that teachers mistrusted Dumbledore for any reason? Also, I am not sure what do you mean by "this is what Snape haters keep harping on" > Elyse: I think someone has already addressed this pointing out that > Snape has never actually endangered students, but on the contrary, > saved a number of lives. Alla: Well, I am of different opinion. I think that making someone so afraid of you that you become their Boggart means endangering the psyche of that student on the permanent basis. I think that making student feel so afraid of you that he feels that he is imprisoning himself when he stays with you in the same room means endagering that student too. I think that throwing the student out of your office, no matter WHAT that student did and how wrong that student had been also means endangering that student. Elyse: > But yes, I yeild to your argument that DD could have found a job for > him somewhere else. (Although I shudder to think what kind of > potions he might have brewed at that Potion Research Institute if he > was inventing Sectumsemprs at fifteen) :-) Alla: LOL! > > Elyse: And hopefully we will see Snape being genuinely remorseful in > the last book. Alla: Yeah, hopefully. :-) > Elyse: Dunno bout the spelling but if Snape was DDM all along then, > he we did see him make a LOT of sacrifices like saving Harry's ass, > and Draco's too. Alla: See, I don't know what the sacrifice was. Like was Snape in any danger when he was saving Harry? He did a good deed, true (although I can think of many self serving motivations for that), but sacrifice? Was Snape robbed of something improtant to him after he saved Harry? JMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 20 03:23:52 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:23:52 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing/ What would DD want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141876 Alla: > Hee, not trying to convince you or anything since we talked about > it many times both on list and off, just trying to explain why I > so don't see Dumbledore asking someone to rip their soul again. SSSusan: Hee back! That's good, since I can be pretty stubborn, as you know! ;-) Alla: > Dumbledore does not say that he destroyed he Stone when he talks > to Harry. He says "As for the stone, it had been destroyed" - > PS/SS, p.297, paperback, which IMO may mean that Stone was > destroyed in the battle and Dumbledore had nothing to do with it. > > BUT even if he did destroy the Stone, I think that "Well, Nicholas > and I have had a little chat, and agreed that it is all for the > best" - p.297, may support the interpretation that Flanels were > going to choose their great adventure soon anyways and they just > made their choice faster. SSSusan: I know we're never going to convince each other, but I can't resist responding to this. You do realize when you say that this "may support the interpretation that Flamels were going to choose their great adventure soon anyways and they just made their choice faster," that it CLOSELY MIRRORS the argument many DDM!Snape or Things Aren't What They Appear on the Tower fans say, don't you? That is, that DD was *dying* on the Tower and knew it, that he was fully prepared for the next great adventure, that he wanted to die in such a way as to prevent Draco from murder and to get the DEs out of Hogwarts, but that he needed HELP to accomplish this? That his pleading to Snape was for Snape to provide that help? IOW, that he was choosing the great adventure (knew it was imminent), and that he just made the choice to get their faster? I recognize that this is not your position at all, but I hope you can also see how the Flamel situation you postulate really does closely match the Tower situation many HPfGUers have also put out there. Just an interesting parallel, I thought. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan, who is pleased to know that neither she nor Alla will gloat when *whichever* one of us eats her crow. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 03:52:11 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:52:11 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing/ What would DD want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141878 ?? SSSusan: > You do realize when you say that this "may support the > interpretation that Flamels were going to choose their great > adventure soon anyways and they just made their choice faster," that > it CLOSELY MIRRORS the argument many DDM!Snape or Things Aren't What > They Appear on the Tower fans say, don't you? > > That is, that DD was *dying* on the Tower and knew it, that he was > fully prepared for the next great adventure, that he wanted to die > in such a way as to prevent Draco from murder and to get the DEs out > of Hogwarts, but that he needed HELP to accomplish this? ?? Alla: Snort, sorry, you correctly put it that this is not my position at all. Because even though the way you put it DOES mirror the Tower situation in a backwards way ( IMO) - you are postulating that Flamels are Dumbledore and Dumbledore is Snape, correct? I don't see how it supports Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him and that is what I was originally responding to. Besides, I was probably being unclear - I was speculating that Flanels were ready to die BEFORE stown was destroyed, since " it is all for the best" could be read as I wanted to do it anyway. What I am trying to say, I speculate that Flamels would have stopped drinking the Elixir soon in any event, therefore I am NOT sure that they needed any help, just that what happened was for the best, but they did not ask for it. Am I coherent or not really? I think it is time for me to go to bed. :-) I am also quite convinced that Dumbledore may had nothing to do with stone destruction in the first place, as I said upthread, then the analogy fails completely, IMO > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, who is pleased to know that neither she nor > Alla will gloat when *whichever* one of us eats her crow. > Alla: MAHAHAHA. Who knows maybe I won't resist a possibility to gloat a little bit, tiny-tiny bit? I hereby give you the permission to do the same if I will eat my crow. :-) Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 20 03:47:51 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:47:51 -0000 Subject: House Unity--final goal? ( Re: Draco's life vs. Dumbledore's ) In-Reply-To: <010b01c5cd0d$d8eda8d0$6172400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141879 Bringing Magpie's post up long after the fact, but it has so many interesting throughts about where JKR could be headed (aside from the inevitable Harry vs. Voldemort battle of course!). > Magpie: > If we're talking about just a practical wartime descision, > obviously the brilliant general is far more valuable than a child > pawn for the other side. Draco would be an easy loss, Dumbledore a > great loss. But this is not a regular battle, and it's not going > to be won by the brilliant strategy of Dumbledore the General. > DD's part in the story is over. He knows it, the author knows it, > most of the sixth book seems to be about preparing for exactly > this. Harry has to face the final book without him, and > presumably he'll wind up doing great. Jen: I was flipping through the Art of War today and noticed a comment Dumbledore might agree with: "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." Sun Tzu, 1983 edition, Delacorte press. Dumbledore spent the 6th year training Harry not in battle, but in understanding his enemy. By the time of the Horcrux chapter, when they talk about Harry's power and settle the meaning of the prophecy, I really had the sense Dumbledore felt the end of his training was near. The pratical training in the cave was an attempt to put all the prior work into action, and again Dumbledore's teaching mostly consisted of recognizing Voldemort's magical style and his strengths/weaknesses. All that to say I agree Dumbledore felt secure battle strategies were the least of what Harry needed to learn to defeat Voldemort. Magpie: > More importantly, there's the Sorting Hat's song, held back until > fifth year, but I think very important to the series. However > nice Hogwarts may have seemed to Harry when he showed up, it's a > school that is broken and wounded, and it's suffering for it. The > hat explains how it was founded, how all the founders fought with > each other, and how the fighting stopped because one of them- > Slytherin-left. This stopped the fighting, but at a price. > Throughout the series--especially in books V and VI, the school > has been vulnerable because of this rift. Jen: Another explanation to me of why Dumbledore spent his life at Hogwarts and not in politics or the business world. He seemed to have two goals by staying at Hogwarts. First he told Voldemort: "Well, to a wizard such as myself, there can be nothing more important than passing on ancient skills, helping hone young minds." (chap. 20, p. 442, Scholastic). So passing on love magic was one of his goals. The second, what you are alluding to, we find out in GOF: "...we are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided..." (chap. 37, p. 722) Dumbledore's speaking specifically about Voldemort's return there, but most of his tenure as headmaster involved the school being torn apart from within by Voldemort & the like-minded, so I think it's fair to say he saw ridding the WW of Voldemort through unity as the *ultimate* goal. Magpie: > I don't think this is a case of Slytherins being evil and so we > should just get rid of them. I seem to remember recently someone > brought up Dumbledore referring to Snape has having "come back" to > them when he became a spy, and wondering if that meant Snape once > worked for them before he became a DE. I think DD considers all > Hogwarts students as belonging on his side, so when Snape joined > with them he was "coming back." Jen: That's a lovely thought and not one I can add much to. I do agree it would be in-character for Dumbledore to view his students in this manner, as he viewed Draco on the tower. Magpie: > As I said, I don't think this has to be about Slytherin being > evil. JKR has mentioned that the houses all represent an element > and that you have to accept all parts of yourself to be healthy. > Hogwarts needs all of its houses and elements (water is pretty > important), and the fact that Slytherin is removed from the other > houses is, imo, one reason it's destructive. Had it been > Ravenclaw who left perhaps they would be the "bad" house working > against the rest. Not to get too into psychology, but it's like > the way they say things you repress about yourself can torment you. Jen: The houses representing the four elements sealed the deal for me. Harmony and unity is part of this story and we have yet to see that in action. And since I love psychology, the unacknowledged parts of the self *are* the source of destruction from within, the parts projected onto others instead of integrated into the self. I see this happening with Harry toward Snape especially (although formerly Draco as well) on the microscopic level, and all the houses toward Slytherin on the macroscopic level. Related to this, I'm suddenly seeing information in Book 1 I never noticed before. One thing was the possibility Harry had characteristics from all four of the houses according to the Sorting Hat: Gryffindor- "Plenty of courage" Ravenclaw- "Not a bad mind" Hufflepuff- "Talent" Slytherin- "Nice thirst to prove yourself" Since we never got to hear what the hat said about anyone else, it's hard to compare whether most of the kids show traits of all four houses or Harry is unique in that way. Reading that section after your post Magpie, it made me wonder if Harry's *real* job might be greater than defeating Voldemort like you suggest. Magpie: > Obviously I'm not suggesting that the seventh book will be all > about Draco--or Snape. I am suggesting that a true understanding > with a (formerly) DE Slytherin would potentially be a much greater > victory than the saving of that one kid. And I think this seems > important to the author as well, since she's come up with three > versions of that kid. There's Regulus, whom we know turned > against the DEs, but was unable to live and join with others >(though his attempt to do so may finally come to light and thus > help heal the rift). Jen: I wonder if the meaning of Sirius' death will come into play here, that he learned more about Regulus while living in 12 Grimmauld and never had the chance to tell Harry before dying? Don't know how exactly, people have suggested Regulus is in the witness protection program or the mirrors might forge the connection--either could work, or JKR could invent whatever magic she needs, even taking Harry beyond the veil if the story calls for it! I see potential for the Regulus storyline, but believe Harry will need validation from Sirius in some form to believe it. You mentioned Snape and Draco as well, and without going to far into it, I liked your point that Harry and Draco are the ones who can sign the peace treaty of this generation, that Harry can't do anything about the feud in the previous generation but has the power to change the one in the present. Jen From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 20 04:08:04 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 04:08:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's mistakes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141880 > Alla: > > IF Dumbledore indeed knew nothing of what Tom already had done, that > would be a different story, but the problem is - he did. Of course, > not that he had done as much harm at elven as he did as Lord > Voldemort, but he knew what Tom did to those three chidren and he > WAS concerned about it. > Pippin: All Dumbledore knows, second-hand from Mrs. Cole, is that Billy Stubbs's rabbit got hung from the rafters, and that after the two children went to explore a cave with Tom they were never quite right. He does not know whether Tom did things on purpose or whether it was accidental magic. If Tom was capable of turning over a new leaf, he deserved the chance to do it -- if he wasn't, then Dumbledore's little knowledge wouldn't have made much difference even if he had shared it. Tom could have pretended remorse and said that he didn't know what he was doing, and the people he had charmed would have believed him. I don't know whether Slughorn was Head of Slytherin in those days, but he would certainly have believed Tom, and obviously Dippet wasn't willing to hear a word against him. It isn't likely that Dumbledore had the influence back then that he does in Harry's day -- he wasn't yet the headmaster or the wizard who led the resistance against Voldemort, or the one who vanquished Grindelwald, or the one on the chocolate frog card. Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 03:54:19 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:54:19 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141881 >Sydney wrote: > First: I think it's definitely important that Snape applies for the DADA job repeatedly. Goddlefrood comments: I have recently addressed this very issue in 141829 (The DADA Job - not Snape's cup of tea?). I believe this is an instance of author misdirection for reasons outlined in that article. One pertinent question to ponder is why, if Snape applied for the DADA job repeatedly did he never get it in place of Dolores? For some reason, as yet undefined, Snape, I believe did not want the job and was not even expecting to be appointed for Harry's sixth year. Reference OotP (Bloomsbury hardback)Chapter Twelve ? Professor Umbridge, at page 209 where Snape says "I take only the very best into my NEWT Potions class, which means that some of us will certainly be saying goodbye." The overall premise of your thoughts are almost in line with mine, however, and it is inspired to suggest that hagrid's memory may be used to clue us in further. From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Oct 20 04:57:47 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 04:57:47 -0000 Subject: Serious or Sirius (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141882 > Geoff: > > Most people I know here in the UK pronounce it with a short "i" as > in lizard, Miriam or pit. Christina: I personally say "Sirius" with a shorter "i" (as in "lizard" as you said) while "serious" has a long "e" like the first "e" in "cereal." I'm American, and I have noticed that most of the people I've spoken to over here pronounce it just like "serious," but I like the short "i" sound much better. Dictionary.com agrees with me at least :) (look up "serious" and "Sirius" and compare). Which of course, leads to... >Carol: >Question: JKR twice puts "Serious" (Black) in quotation marks in this >chapter. Is she doing that to indicate that this is how the PM thinks >it's spelled (like "Kwidditch" for Quidditch)? Or is "Serious" not >the correct pronunciation for Sirius (which means I've been >mispronouncing it all this time)? Christina: I think that the "'Serious' Black" was put in mainly for comedic purposes. Even if JKR personally means for "Sirius" and "serious" to be pronounced a bit differently, that doesn't mean that everybody pronounces them that way. It seems reasonable to assume that perhaps Fudge "fudges" (sorry) Sirius's name a bit, not really knowing him personally, or that the Prime Minister is in such a state of shock (poor guy) that he hears it as "serious" (the differences are subtle, after all). Christina From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Oct 20 05:33:09 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:33:09 -0000 Subject: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141883 > > Christina: > > Regardless of whether you love Snape or hate him, he's *good* at > > teaching DADA. > > Goddlefrood replies: > > I thought the only useful thing Snape taught them was non-verbal > spells, and he didn't really teach that did he? He expected people > to do it. The rest of what we saw had previously been covered, and > in my view quite a lot better than Severus managed it. Christina: Not exactly. What directions can you give for casting non-verbal spells other than "cast a spell without speaking"? And Snape doesn't expect people to do it right off the bat- he says, "One partner will attempt to jinx the other without speaking. The other will attempt to repel the jinx in equal silence." He has them practice on each other to make it work. Snape gives no fewer directions than other teachers we've seen (IIRC, most of the class sessions at Hogwarts consist of students actively refining practical technique. Not much instruction is given when it comes to skill-based magic). > > Christina: > > We know that in VWI, Dumbledore had "a number of useful spies," > but there is nothing that suggests that this is the case now. > > Goddlefrood: > > Lupin wasn't spying on the werewolves then? Christina: Lupin may be a spy for Dumbledore, but he is in no position whatsoever to give him information on Lord Voldemort (sorry if I was unclear about that part). Snape is the only spy that we know of that has infiltrated the Death Eater's inner circle and has direct contact with Lord Voldemort. My impression of Lupin's role was to keep Dumbledore informed of the werewolves specifically (and possibly to find people in Greyback's camp that may have sympathy for the Order, but that is 100% pure speculation on my part). > Goddlefrood: > > As I said earlier there is plenty to indicate that Snape did not > apply. Particularly the events of Harry's fifth year. Do you really > think that if Snape had applied Dumbledore would not, however > reluctantly, have given him the job, mostly because of his aversion > to Ministry interference? Christina: I can see how there might be doubt, but I believe it. Dumbledore needed Snape at Hogwarts as a double agent for as long as possible. I think that the need to get Slughorn to Hogwarts gave Dumbledore the final little push that convinced him that giving Snape the DADA job was his only choice. > > Christina > > Most of the DADA teachers in recent years have stunted the > students' education. > > Goddlefrood: > Quirrell is largely an unknown quantity but did teach them about > werewolves, one of the few indicators of Quirrell's class is in PS > Chapter Thirteen ? Nicolas Flamel, where we are told at page 162: > > 'Next morning in the Defence Against the Dark Arts, while copying > down different ways of treating werewolf bites ' > > Lockhart was incompetent and was another convoluted plot device in > my view. Lupin and fake Moody were certainly quite useful Christina: I agree on Lupin, although I've heard people criticize him, saying he did not teach the students advanced enough material. I don't have GoF on hand so I can't look it up, but did Fake!Moody really teach the students anything other than how to throw off the Imperious Curse (a useful skill of course, but still an Unforgivable)? > Goddlefrood: > even Dolores in Ootp in Chapter Twelve - Professor Umbridge, at page > 220 says: > > "I repeat, as long as you have studied the theory hard enough ?" > > To me this suggests that, other than I grant you Lockhart, each DADA > teacher has been quite useful. I, therefore, have to disagree with > you on this point. Christina: But the whole point of that was that Umbridge was wrong. The students *did* need to practice their skills. Even Hermione, the supposed champion of convention and book-learning, calls Umbridge out. As someone who has just recently escaped from institutionalized public education, I found Umbridge's defense of her methods outright hilarious- "Are you a Ministry-trained educational expert, Miss Granger? ... You will be learning about defensive spells in a secure, risk-free way..." The only DADA-related material the students learn in fifth year comes from *Harry*, who is forced to take action lest the students waste an entire year learning nothing at all! Christina From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 20 05:35:49 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:35:49 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141884 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > when Harry catches up with Voldemort, although > he will have some personal issues to settle, > he will in essence be trying to make the > wizarding world a better place by removing > this tyrant. I agree, however I hope JKR doesn't feel obligated to turn Harry into a moral paragon. I'm hoping to see Harry get a bit edgier, a bit ruthless, even a little scary. I want controversy, and if the self appointed guardians of the world's morals do not denounce the ending of book 7 I will be disappointed. Eggplant From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 05:56:57 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:56:57 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141885 > Goddlefrood comments: > > I have recently addressed this very issue in 141829 (The DADA Job - > not Snape's cup of tea?). I believe this is an instance of author > misdirection for reasons outlined in that article. ...The overall >premise of your thoughts are almost in line with mine, > however, and it is inspired to suggest that hagrid's memory may be > used to clue us in further. I read your post! and I'm totally on the same wavelength, that there's something very fishy about the Snape/DADA thing. It's misdirection of some sort, I'm sure of it-- it's planted too broadly and without any obvious payoff. From kjones at telus.net Thu Oct 20 06:05:03 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:05:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How good Dumbledore is?/Killing a person or soul/ What would DD want? Much shorter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4357338F.3090709@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141886 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > I think JKR meant exactly what she said, frankly - that Dumbledore > is an epitome of goodness I am not trying to > convince you of the opposite, but do want to challenge your examples > of I guess Dumbledore not being so good, or Puppetmaster! > Dumbledore. ( if that is not you meant, I apologise) But of course I > am biased on that matter, since I really, really, really do not like > Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. KJ writes: Excellent post as always, Alla, and a good argument. I don't think of Dumbledore as bad or evil. To me, he was the only one who did not just forget about Voldemort after Godric' Hollow. He knew that Voldemort would return, he knew that Harry would be the first order of business, and he has been searching and planning since before Harry's birth for the means to defeat Voldemort. He is not reactive, he is proactive. I don't see Dumbledore as a "Puppetmaster", so much, as one of the few individuals in the WW ready and willing to accept a situation and take the steps necessary to salvage it. He states in OotP that he had a plan, the plan involved Harry, and that considerable lives were depending on the success of the plan. It is implied that, in caring too much for Harry, it could put the plan in jeopardy. To me this screams "Cover your arse, Harry." I agree that Dumbledore is not biased against the Slyths. I think that he understands that because of their parents, they may not have the same choices as the other houses. I don't even think that he is particularly partial to any house, just the Trio. > Alla: > > Yeah, it seems like he does, BUT is it possible that he hopes that > Snape will figure out things on his own ( just like JKR said that > Dumbledore did not go to Hagrid thinking that Hagrid comes out of > his home on his own). KJ writes: I don't know, Alla. It all seems so logical to me that DD knew that Voldemort would rise again, and was making plans to deal with it. As he kept Snape in the same position for 15 years. It also makes sense to me that Snape would try to remain exactly as he was at the time of Voldemort's vapourization. When V. looked into Snape's mind, all he saw was solitary Snape, who still hates the same people, hates teaching, is only staying there because that is where his master sent him. He still hates the same people, he can show memories of trying to get Harry expelled. There is nothing in his mind that V. would not expect to see. Snape obeys Dumbledore implicitly, even when he makes it plain that he disagrees, or disapproves. All DD would have to do, is order Snape to stop being rank to Harry. I think that Dumbledore has to allow Snape to do this whether he approves or not knowing he would be sending him back to V. Snape did choose to go back to Voldie, and I agree that he has some serious favours to pay back, but he *was* apparently forced into doing something in HBP. > Alla: > > I LOVED his answer too, but for a different reason. I saw that > Dumbledore LEARNED from his mistakes in OOP and was being truthful > with Harry. He is not G-d, so he cannot be sure that Harry survives, > but he hopes so. KJ writes: But, compare this to telling a person to jump off a high cliff,(which is at least comparable to killing Voldemort), handing them a large plastic sheet, (which is comparable to the actual help Harry is given on how to succeed), and then, cheerily, telling him that you hope that the plastic sheet will help him to survive.:) I sometimes think that Harry must be thick as mud. > Alla: > (snip) but to me asking some to rip their soul means that DD > is Manipulator with a capital M when I am in most charitable mood > and I don't see him that way. KJ: I think that he has to be a manipulator. He does so as Chief Warlock, and as school administrator, he manipulated Fudge, and we see some sign of it in the quarrel Trelawny has over Firenze. He has to make her want to stay without causing Firenze to leave. Manipulation is not a dirty word, necessarily. It's a requirement of DD's job. Also, just idle speculation, if Harry is an accidental horcrux, splitting his soul, especially if he has a piece of V. in there, might be what allows him to survive. If Harry could make a horcrux out of the voldie piece and then smash it like a bug, it would shorten book 7 considerably. Plus, a question that I posted before, but has not been answered: Why is it that no one on the list is at all concerned about killing viable soul pieces. He has already killed one without knowing what it was, and Dumbledore killed one. Why is it of concern that Harry might split his soul killing Voldemort, but there is no concern about the destruction of soul parts? I am interested in your opinion on this. Presumably killing a person does not destroy the soul, merely the earthly body. Harry has been specifically sent after Voldemort's souls. KJ From April at cyberlinc.net Thu Oct 20 05:17:57 2005 From: April at cyberlinc.net (April Johnson) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:17:57 -0400 Subject: Serious or Sirius (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister) References: Message-ID: <058301c5d535$c7e27fe0$1502a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 141887 Christina: I personally say "Sirius" with a shorter "i" (as in "lizard" as you said) while "serious" has a long "e" like the first "e" in "cereal." April writes: I looked up how to say Sirius on the scholastic website, http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/reference/ , and, being American too, it sounds just like Serious, with the long e. But I'm wondering if the scholastic site is just American, or is their a british site with pronunciations? April From ayaneva at aol.com Thu Oct 20 07:01:39 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:01:39 -0000 Subject: La Divina Commedia/Barque of the Dante/Chapter 26? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141888 I seriously couldn't find any thread to tack this on to; probably because this proposal is a little odd and all based one scene in chapter 26 and a painting. I hope it hasn't been mentioned; I searched but didn't see anything. Anyway, on to the point. I'm an "art historian in training," so when reading the whole "boat crossing with freaky inferi" bit from Chapter 26- The Cave, the only thing that I can think of is "Barque of the Dante" by Delacroix... Try the following link for the painting, but a Google image search will get you plenty results as well: http://www.uh.edu/engines/romanticism/barque-dante.jpg IF this was a purposeful send up, and this is a HUGE IF, is it just a JKR *nudge nudge wink wink* to Delacroix or is there something else in this? A theme perhaps? I think salvation, while not in reference to The Divine Comedy, has been mentioned; it seems almost too simple, but maybe. The sins of man? Too general, me thinks. What then, if anything? Can we match characters with characters? The problem is that I don't know The Divine Comedy very well (read: at all), so now I'm struggling my way through an English translation of La Divina Commedia to see what I can find. I think I've only made it to Inferno Canto 03 because I really got lost on the bit about the leopard(?) and the dude on the horse. Stupid metaphors....*grumbles* I'm still not sure what they were talking about. All I could get is something about the animalistic nature of man that causes one to stray from the path of righteousness. And then Dante(???) was running from his demons (represented by the leopard or some four-legged feline beast thingie) instead of facing them. After that, I have NO idea why Dante(???) and the guy on the horse ended up wandering over to the river Styx, or whatever you want to call it, in the first place. And I don't know where they were going in the boat because I haven't gotten that far. However, I did get to the spot right before where I think the "Barque of the Dante" painting comes in. It's the souls of the damned in the water bit and the demon oarsman beating the crap out of people with his oar because they're not moving fast enough. Or something like that. I could definitely imagine JKR reading The Divine Comedy at some point in the past. I must say, I'm finding Dante very fascininating, if a bit obtuse (obtuse in this case meaning "difficult to comprehend") in his writing. That fact that I'm reading a translation doesn't help any. I'm probably way off base and won't get anywhere with my Divine Comedy theory; *if* I can ever get through the whole thing and understand it. I'm not even sure *what* exactly the theory *is* yet. I'm working on it! In the end, who knows? I just might have my first set of small, leaky, arm floaties like the kids use in swimming pools. It certainly won't be a boat; I doubt it'll even make it to innertube status. Meh. I've always wanted to read Dante anyway, so my time's not completely wasted. As much as I shy away from strictly Christian interpretations of the books, I'm willing to go with a broader theme of some sort that just so happens to be expressed in a Christian work such as that by Dante. A compromise, then. Oh, if you want the English translation of Divina Commedia, here: http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/comedy/comedy_hc/dante_longfellow/inf01.html That should be a trustworthy translation, as it's from Columbia University. I think I'm done now! I don't even know if this AyanEva From natti_shafer at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 08:15:08 2005 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:15:08 -0000 Subject: Wormtail at Spinner's End (WAS Re: New(?) questions about the Unbreakable Vow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141889 > houyhnhnm: > it is the presence of Wormtail he must turn to good account. It's got to look suspicious that the wizard who brought LV back to life is living in Snape's house and listening at keyholes. So he solves that threat by brow-beating Wormtail into the role of a servant. Nathaniel: You hit on an interesting point here houynhnm, but you don't really delve into it. (Perhaps you've addressed this at length in another post, and if that's the case, you must forgive me for missing it among the many posts.) But the question is, just what is Peter doing at Snape's home? I had been assuming that Voldemort foisted him on Snape as a place to hide him. He couldn't very well use Peter in any practical way since with the clearing of Sirius' name, Peter's animagus form, if not a matter of common knowledge is at least now public record. However, your post seems to indicate that you believe that Voldemort placed Peter there so as to keep an eye on Snape. And now that you've placed that idea in my head, I'm inclined to agree. After all, Peter already served Voldermort once as a spy. From Book 4, it seems that Voldemort really has no confidence in Peter in any capacity other than that as spy. Based on wormtail's complete absence from Book 5 it doesn't seem that Voldemort's estimation of him has changed. So by placing him at Spinner's End, it seems that Voldemort doesn't entirely trust Snape after all. Therefore, even though Snape protests that he has the Dark Lord's full confidence, Peter's presence would indicate otherwise. I don't know if this sheds light on the ongoing discussion as to Snape's motives, but I do believe that Snape is not on as solid ground with Voldemort as he would have everyone believe. Perhaps that is why he consented to the Unbreakable Vow? Whatever your position on Snape (ESE, OFM, or DDM), it makes more sense to me that he took the UV in order to show his allegience to the Dark Lord. Whether or not that allegience was sincere is a debate I thoroughly enjoy reading! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 20 10:19:36 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:19:36 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: <88.31ad8e70.30885ffd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141890 Julie: > Neither does Snape mention it at a time he might be > expected to, during his self-defense speech to Bellatrix ("I also > delayed the Order's arrival at the Department of Mysteries. It's not > my fault you and the others couldn't do your part before the Order > arrived"). Given that lack of evidence of any deliberate delay on the > part of Snape, the most *likely* conclusion is that the inconsistency > was unintentional, a simple maths error on the part of JKR. Not the > only conclusion, mind you, but the most likely conclusion. Ceridwen: In Spinner's End, page 29 US, Bellatrix seems to think the Order showed up much too soon: "They were joined, as you very well know, by half of the Order before long!" snarled Bellatrix. Snape doesn't say anything to this, as Bellatrix moves on to why he doesn't reveal the location of Order headquarters, and it's just left lying in the dust. 'Before long' indicates something less than five hours, to me. Ceridwen. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 10:20:44 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:20:44 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141891 > > CV: I think part of the "peaceful look" extension comes from the fact > that he is still wearing his specticles, which are just crooked. Given > all the recent activity, one would have expected his glasses to be in > worse condition or missing, wouldn't you say? Unless you believe, as I > do, that it's all a fake. Finwitch: Not in the world of Unbreakable Charms. Hermione put one on the glass- jar she had Rita in, remember? I'm positive that Albus Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall, Percy Weasley and Rita Skeeter all have Unbreakable Charms on their glasses... Harry doesn't so far as we know, but maybe Hermione will put one on them - or even Harry himself, once he's Seventeen. I'm positive he won't want his glasses broken in middle of a fight with Voldemort. Maybe Harry even had one put on them off-scene after GoF... by Sirius in GP12 maybe. Finwitch From ayaneva at aol.com Thu Oct 20 10:21:05 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:21:05 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Ceridwen now: > > Can anyone point me to the first reading, where Trelawney is turning > > over the hand of spades? The reason I want to > > know is, does anyone else think the 'Knave of Spades' might refer to > > Snape? He has dark hair and eyes, is young compared to Dumbledore, > > is possibly troubled, and he dislikes Trelawney. What else was in > > that reading? > > Carol responds: > > > > As for your question about Snape being the young man referred to by > the Tarot card, that was my immediate reaction, too, except that I > thought the qustioner was Dumbledore. Snape is dark (except for his > pale/sallow complexion) and wears black robes, and he's quite young > compared with Trelawney (much less Dumbledore). He is certainly > "troubled," having placed himself (and Dumbledore) in a terrible > predicament by taking the Unbreakable Vow. > Me Responding: I agree that Snape is the "dark young man," but I kind of thought the questioner was Harry. I've assumed that the questioner is the one for whom the reading is being done, but not every card would have to be *about* the questioner. So, I had a sudden though today that Harry was the questioner and not all of the cards were specifically about him, rather they were about events that would occur and those people who would be involved. Obviously, this whole scene involves Harry somehow or JKR wouldn't have him in Trelawney's vicinity. So, Trelawney's flipping through cards and the reading comes out as Harry's because he's there, even though she doesn't see him. Hence the "That can't be right." OR Interestingly, after I had this thought, I spent a great deal of time online trying to find the exact combination of Trelawney's reading; I couldn't find it. I kept coming up with the Knave as "a boy" and only the Knight showed up as "a young man." However, as I mentioned before Trelawny does say, "Well, that can't be right." on page 196. Could she be referring to both an actual and accidental misreading of the cards? 1)An accidental "misreading" in that the reading came out for Harry because he was right in the vicinity. To her this reading seemed a bit botched up because she couldn't see Harry, but in reality it was spot on. 2)An actual misreading because, being a littly batty and drunk, she mixed up Knave with Knight. Carol said: > For all these reasons, I think the young man is Snape, not Harry. My > problem with this reading is the suggestion that Snape doesn't like > Dumbledore (assuming that DD is the "questioner"). If this reading is > correct, then Snape is evil, and I don't think he is (as I've already > made clear in numerous posts so I won't repeat myself here). For that > reason, I want to explore the possibility of an alternate reading, > with Snape as the young man but someone other than DD as the questioner. > Me again: At this point, if Harry's the questioner in the scenario that I described above, we don't have to worry about the "Snape doesn't like Dumbledore" problem (I don't go with ESE!Snape either; Snape's still *good* darnit!) >Carol said: > And Ron, who also > hates Snape and is seldom right about anything... And me yet again: ROFL For some reason, this makes me laugh every time I read it! *holds sides laughing* ----------------------- I figured I'd run with this card thing and give my deck a go. Sorry if I repeat anything that's been mentioned before! And now for a little extra on Trelawney's playing cards: 2 of Spades: conflict 7 of Spades: an ill omen 10 of Spades: violence Knave of Spades: a dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner I got to wondering if the meanings of these cards were constant throughout all (or most) tarot decks. Many seem to be pretty similar, with the exception of the Knave/Knight issue that I mentioned earlier. However, my deck of cards is a bit different than most. Don't ask why I have a deck of tarot cards... I'm not very good at it without the accompanying book and I just use them for fun, mostly. As you continue to read, keep in mind that I'm no expert at this, I just think it's fascinating. A little background. The first issue is that my cards use the traditional suits, with the exception of Coins. I have Cups, Wands, Swords, and Pentacles. However, the decks that I looked at online are named slightly differently (I don't know if there's a difference in meaning between suits if names are substituted): Wand is replaced by Stave and Pentacles is replaced by Coins. The other two, Swords and Cups, are the same I think. So, Spades in a card deck corresponds to Swords in my deck. So now it's: 2 of Swords 7 of Swords Ten of Swords Page(ie: Knave)of Swords But then there's the issue of only finding the "Knave" description from the book under the "Knight" heading when I tried to look this up. The closest I got between Knave and the "dark young man" description was "a boy." Clearly JKR didn't want us to think of a boy, since she has Trelawney saying MAN. So, I'm going to go for broke here and use the Knight card in my deck in place of the Page/Knave. I should note, however, that the Page in my deck *could* work OK in this reading if it referred to Harry. So to refresh: 2S, 7S, 10S, KnightS (not Page/Knave). Like all of the posts that I make, this is going to be very long, so you might want to skip to another thread now. I'd like to post the long version of these position descriptions, but I think it's way too much material. A shame too, because it really puts the divinatory (is that a word?) reading in context. ---------------------------------- This is from a book that goes with my cards called, "The Mythic Tarot: A New Approach to the Tarot Cards" by Juliet Sharman-Burke and Liz Greene. Published by Simon & Schuster, NY, 1986, Eddison-Sadd Edition. And yeah that citation was all wrong. Here's an Amazon.com link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671618636/002-9134313-6003253?v=glance Sharman-Burke and Greene are apparently a very reputable bunch when it comes to mythological studies and, for the most part, it seems this deck and book are fairly well-respected. Discounting the occasional complaint on quality of the cardstock and book binding. So, it's not your usual mumbo jumbo. Here we go then. 2S- "On a divinatory level, the Two of Swords implies a state of tense balance where there is a refusal to face some impending situation of conflict. A more creative way of handling this situation might be to try to face what is before one, rather than attempting to preserve the status quo, which will eventually be disrupted anyway (147-48)." 7S- "...the Seven of Swords heralds a time when it is necessary to use guile, tact, diplomacy, and wit rather than strong-armed bullying tactics to achieve one's ends. This may leave an uncomfortable feeling of falseness, but life may require it (154)." 10S- "...the Ten of Swords heralds the final ending of a difficult situation. The ending may be painful, but at last the situation is faced truthfully, and a new future, with fewer conflicts, can begin (158)." KnightSwords (remember, we're switching out the Knave)- "When the Knight of Swords appears in a spread, it is time for the individual to be prepared for sudden changes which break apart the ordinary patterns of life. These changes may be inaugurated by an individual coming ito one's life who possesses the quicksilver, fascinating an disruptive qualities of the Dioscuri; or it may take the form of a new idea or vision which erupts from within oneself and which throws ordinary life into disorder for a time. Thus, whether the Knight of Swords appears from without or within, his gift is the ability to move with changes, and the turbulence which he brings may ultimately lead to a broader vision of life (163-64)." Just so you know, if we use Page/Knave in this we get: PS- "When the Page of Swords appears in a spread, it is time to meet within oneself the childlike curiosity and potential for spiteful gossip which the Page embodies, and which marks the beginning of the use of mental powers. One may oneself be the victim of others' gossip; or there can be a tendency to start petty quarrel and to be irritable and difficult. But these things reflect the emergence of new ideas and true independent thinking- often in one who has been accustomed to accepting the views of others (161)." I really wished they'd just happend to mention the particular spread that Trelawney's using. It would really help. I don't know what positions these cards are in! At this point, I have no idea what to make of this. The spread seems to fit Snape perfectly, but not Harry. We continue. :::: I just looked up 4 card spreads and got that 4 card spreads are for making quick decisions. And that's all I could find. The positions are: 1)Ahead- What you need to do to achieve your goals 2)Back- negative actions/obstacles that are going to get in the way of you trying to reach your goal 3)Stray- stuff that's causing you to stray 4)Fortune- whatever's on this card is an added bonus Unfortunately, using this spread makes no sense whatsoever. NOTHING fits. The only solution is that Trelawney wasn't finished her reading. What if the reading was supposed to be longer than 4 cards, she thought she'd messed up, so then she stopped and started over? It makes sense because she stopped in the middle of a sentence before starting over again. Just because I like it, I'm going to say that Trelawney was using the traditional 10 card celtic cross spread and she got through the first four positions before restarting. Position 1: 2S Position 2: 7S Position 3: 10S Position 4: KnightS (I think this, like in Trelawney's spread, is most telling, so I've quoted it directly) 1)Covering Card/Significator (using the latter): reflects the situation (inner/outer) in which the questioner finds himself/herself. 2)Crossing Card: situation (inner/outer) that's causing conflict and obstruction at present 3)Crowing Card: immediate atmosphere and situation of questioner at present. Reflects what's on surface and immediately apparent in questioner's life. 4)Base of the Matter: "This describes the inner and outer situation, drive, instinct or aspiration whch is really behind the apparent surface situation reflected by the Crowing Card. What is at the base is really what is at the root of the psyche, and often this card comes as a surprise to the seeker, who may not have been aware of an unconscious motivation which needs to be brought into awareness. We do not always act or feel things for the reasons we think, and the card which appears at the Base of the Matter will often contradict the apparent reason for our dilemma at the time of consulting the cards (202)." If we assume that Snape is being referred to in the card at the 4th Position, then he's the "Base of the Matter." That has the added bonus of making me very happy. *waves her SexySnape flag* Position 1 is Harry's current situation as it appears, which needs little explanation. What we don't see is Position 4, which is the driving force behind Position 1. Positions 2 and 3 don't need much explaining, I don't think. Best of all, Trelawney's card readings agree with the 4 positions fairly well. Would you believe I just spent, like, the last 3 hours or so typing this thing? How sad is that? *rubs eyes sleepily* I personally, think she was doing the 10 card celtic cross spread and stopped, rather than just doing a 4 card spread. As far as I can tell the cross spread is pretty standard, so it would make perfect sense for her to use that in every day activities. The 4 card seems to be for making quick decisions and there's no indication that she was doing the reading to make a quick decision. And since when has she done anything quickly anyway? I can totally see her wandering the halls doing really long 10 card readings... What does this tell us about HP as a whole, and in particular Book 6 and Book 7? Yeah, I don't know. I'm not that clever. Anyone want to give it a go? I've tried, but I'm just too sleepy to think by this point. *yawns* AyanEva From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 20 11:11:23 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:11:23 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141893 Ceridwen, snipping AyanEva's excellent and well-researched post (I enjoyed it, and it got me thinking) A lot of people use the regular deck of playing cards for fortune telling. And, one method of doing so on the fly is to just turn cards over and read them in your hand, not laying them out into a spread on a table. As Divination teacher, Trelawney would know several different ways to read cards, and how to read several different types of decks. There is a how-to for regular playing cards at http://www3.sympatico.ca/terrir/divination_index.html And, there is a four-card reading, though it only uses 32 cards, sevens and above, which doesn't help for Trelawney's reading. However, since I was curious, I snagged the meanings for the four cards we hear her discussing: 2 Spades: Torn between two choices, stalemate 7 Spades: Stealth in dealings.Betrayal by someone you trust. Minor theft. (Romany: Seven of Spades - your tears ) 10 Spades: Weakened health, chronic illness (real and imagined) Knave Spades: Immature, cold, bossy, delinquent or gang leader Spades are for: "Wisdom of old age, obstacles in life, warnings Winter Air and Earth Black hair and eyes, introverted, cold, unemotional approach to life Swords" Wisdom sounds like Dumbledore, but the physical description sounds like Snape. Harry would be hearts, as he has dark hair and blue, green or hazel eyes. Since the Romany four-card reading doesn't involve the 2, this is all I could get from it: Jack Spades: Serious young man, in law or medicine, can also mean deception 10 Spades: Sorrow, loss of freedom, sad journey 7 Spades: Suspense, decisions or arrangements to be made Disclaimer: I don't read cards, not Tarot, not playing cards. This is just on a cursory search of the internet, not from any personal knowledge or experties. Ceridwen. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Oct 20 11:47:06 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:47:06 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AyanEva" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > > Ceridwen now: > > > Can anyone point me to the first reading, where Trelawney is turning > > > over the hand of spades? The reason I want to > > > know is, does anyone else think the 'Knave of Spades' might refer to > > > Snape? He has dark hair and eyes, is young compared to Dumbledore, > > > is possibly troubled, and he dislikes Trelawney. What else was in > > > that reading? I originally thought Trelawney might be referring to either Harry or Snape in this scene. However, not to discount anyone's research, which I found fasinating, but I am now listening to HBP on DVD. As I already know the events that will come, I am now thinking that the the dark young man who dislikes the questioner is actually forshadowing the events that will happen in this chapter. In other words, when Dumbledore meets Tom Riddle for the first time - conflict, violence, troubled, dark, young, and dislikes answering DD's questions. any thoughts on that? colebiancardi From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 20 12:17:33 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:17:33 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141895 Eggplant: > I agree, however I hope JKR doesn't feel obligated to turn Harry into > a moral paragon. I'm hoping to see Harry get a bit edgier, a bit > ruthless, even a little scary. I want controversy, and if the self > appointed guardians of the world's morals do not denounce the ending > of book 7 I will be disappointed. Pippin: Oh, I think they're denouncing already, some of them on this very list .Take Dumbledore's disconcerting habit of ruthlessly laying almost unbearable burdens on his friends and allies, even children, while bending over backwards to show consideration to his enemies. Is this a mistake in Rowling's eyes? Or is it, in fact, the way she thinks moral people ought to act? Will she not show us this by having Harry realize he needs to do the same? Ohh, I can hear the howls already. How *could* she? Pippin From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 20 08:03:02 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:03:02 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141896 > Pippin: > > Supposing that JKR did wish to indicate that the AK was possibly fake and that conspiracy > or legilimency between Snape and Dumbledore, unknown to Harry, was a possibility. What > more should she have done to suggest this without giving the game away? > Lupinlore: Well, suggesting it isn't really the point. The point is that such contrivance, suggested or not, is incredibly cheesy. "Oh, I'll show this scene but manage to come up with some convoluted and unbelievable way of completely turning the situation around so that Harry is completely wrong about Snape (yet again) and Snape completely in the clear." Which is what I mean, partially, about JKR being in a corner. She's presented a situation that lots of people (mainly DDM!Snape supporters, I suppose) find impossible to believe, view as an emotional and thematic betrayal, and/or find aesthetically repugnant. However, the only way out of said situation is to create escape hatches in the plot that lots of other people (mainly OFH! Snape and ESE!Snape supporters) find impossible to believe, view as an emotional and thematic betrayal, and/or find aesthetically repugnant. In one blow she severely limited her options and practically guaranteed that there will be widespread disappointment with the last book no matter which way she moves. Maybe she doesn't care about that ("some won't like it, etc"), and if so that is certainly her prerogative. But whether she cares or not does not alter the fact of the matter. Pippin: > What I really can't understand about OFH!Snape is that it seems to presume that Snape is > somehow less culpable for killing Dumbledore if he did it in pursuit of his own ends than > if he did it at Voldemort's orders. And I don't understand that at all. Lupinlore: Oh, I don't think any OFH!Snape theorist is limiting Snape's culpability. What OFH!Snape does that DDM!Snape does not is allow us to accept the facts as presented without building a series of escape hatches into the plot to explain why what we saw in the book's pivotal scene isn't really what we saw in the book's pivotal scene. For that matter, unlike either ESE! or DDM! it allows us to accept most facts as presented without a great deal of twisting and turning to explain how X or Y that Snape does fits into him being on DD's side or Voldy's side. By and large one is able to say that when Snape appears to be doing something to benefit DD he really is doing that, and when he appears to be doing something that benefits Voldy he really is doing that, and when he appears to be trapped and conflicted he really is trapped and conflicted. So, unlike DDM!Snape, OFH!Snape really does believe that Snape has done something wrong, that he really HAS done something that serves Voldy's purposes (although maybe not for Voldy's reasons), and he is culpable for that. But, unlike ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape believes that when Snape was appearing to help Dumbledore, he really WAS helping Dumbledore (although maybe not for Dumbledore's reasons), and this gives precedent that allows for him to redeem himself in the end, although certainly at a very high cost. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 20 08:09:08 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:09:08 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141897 Sydney wrote: >>> In my opinion, the end of the argument overheard by Hagrid was that Dumbledore blindsided Snape by proposing that he actually go through with the Vow and kill him...; and Snape absolutely, CAPSLOCKLY, refused (sounded a little overworked...). But when Snape arrives at the top of the tower, the circumstances were extraordinary-- D-dore disarmed, DE's everywhere, Draco frozen. If Snape broke the Vow, he would have dropped dead Heroically, as he had planned, and been noble and everything-- but then Fernir would have killed D-dore, and V-mort would have killed Draco and his entire family, and the DE's would have run amuk in the school, and so on. Dumbledore saw the whole picture, but I think he still honestly didn't think Snape would go through with it. Hence the pleading that started without any transition the moment Snape arrived. And thus the Curse had it's little game, because Snape would much, MUCH rather have died than do what he did-- it was the ultimate what is right vs. what is easy choice. <<< Lupinlore now: The problem with this, as with so many other such scenarios, is that it effectively makes Snape the hero of the story. By doing the "ultimate" in what is right over what is easy his choices overshadow Harry's. The books might as well be called "Severus Snape and his Final Redemption." Now, I don't think that is where JKR wants to go. I certainly HOPE that isn't where JKR wants to go. But I, personally, would be very annoyed indeed if she pulled such a stunt. Lupinlore From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Thu Oct 20 09:13:17 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:13:17 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141898 Subject: Re: NECESSITY of killing? a_svirn says, after a lot of snipping: Deborah would like to agree, as she does with most of a_svirn's post, but ... Hitler and Co. are useful examples; let's look at the other side. And here some of my memory is in senile remission, but the facts are look-uppable. Dam-busters. Bombs that bounce on water, and in so doing get into the right place to breach German dam walls and flood Nazi installations in the valley. There was a book; also I think a movie. But before there was anything, there was a designer of the bouncing bombs. This is History Channel stuff, but it convinces me. The designer ? the bouncing-bomb boffin ? treated the design problem as an exercise in logic and applied science. He applied his mind to the problem, and designed what he'd been asked for. And the squadron took off into the unknown. The bombs worked; but so did the Luftwaffe, and after the raid some aircraft were badly damaged and some had dead or injured crew members, and some never returned. And suddenly it wasn't a logic puzzle any more, and he was deeply traumatised at his own role in killing those young men he'd known and admired; his own role in death which had become real to him in a way he'd never expected. He gave up weapons design at that point. So, we have a man, acting under orders and most certainly for the Greater Good at that time, who didn't give his soul a thought until the killing for which he was responsible actually happened. And then, having collided with reality and mortality, he bailed out. Surely it is somewhat likely that, say, Regulus Black might have had a similar epiphany? But the bunch he was working for wouldn't have allowed him to simply withdraw. The Bomb Boffin could, presumably because his side in the conflict really was the Greater Good. But Regulus couldn't. A wise colleague of mine used to say: "What's a mind for if you can't change it?", and that implies that we are always in sole control of our lives, our minds, our actions. What Dark Lord is going to sit back and let that happen? Dark Lords are control freaks of note, and they will not let people have things both ways any more than they will let them have individual consciences. This could have implications for Snape, of course; he too could have felt genuine remorse after and as a result of his Death Eating activities, once they had stopped being abstractions. And what point might that have been? Guesses, guesses ... yours at least as good as mine! Deborah, humming Lilli Marlene and wishing she wasn't From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 20 13:29:47 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:29:47 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141899 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: Geoff: > > > > Many dictators - Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and, more recently, Idi > > Amin and Saddam Hussein for example - have been responsible for > the > > mass murder of their peoples. They may not have pulled the > trigger > > personally on each killing but it would, to me, fit my extended > > definition of murder because it was for their own gain - extension > of > > power, elimination of opposition, strengthening of control etc. > > Again, I think that attempts to remove them for "the greater good" > > would not be seen in the light of murder by observers. > > > a_svirn: > Depends on observers. Most of them at the time when these attempts > were made were actually quite indignant on behalf of their beloved > tyrants. In fact, quite a few punitive campaigns were launched in > order to find and punish all the culprits and nip any other such > attempts in the bud. Geoff: I used the word specifically to mean outside observers ? perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough. I quite agree that there would have been adherents of Hitler who would have been appalled by the death of the beloved F?hrer. It is ever so - there are people in Iraq who would welcome Saddam back. I think these are the folk who joined to be in on the power game, to be the bully boys, the sort of attitude displayed by Wormtail. "You'd want to be quite sure he was the biggest bully in the playground before you went back to him, wouldn't you?" (POA "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" p.271 UK edition) a_svirn; > Also, I for one have a constitutional dislike of this "the Greater > Good" thing. A very slippery concept and one open to endless > interpretations. Take Draco, for instance, I don't think he would > phrase it quite like that, but he certainly believed himself to be > in the right when he entered Voldermot's service. So undoubtedly did > Regulus. He might well have killed lots of muggles and muggle-borns > for all we know and all for the Greater Good's sake. For what could > have possibly been his personal gain? Money and power at least his > family had in abundance. Geoff: I think we may disagree here because I believe, as a Christian, that there are moral absolutes and the concept of the "greater good" can fit within them. Taking your example of Draco, I'm not sure that he would be considering what was in the right. Like Wormtail, he's looking for the biggest bully. He wants a slice of the action tormenting and killing those who oppose Voldemort (either intentionally or unknowingly). There again, perhaps Regulus wanted more then the power and money from his family ? the power to exercise life and death and fear over another person. And if there was an idea of a greater good within the minds of these twisted individuals, then it certainly wouldn't be the absolute which I believe is laid down by God. However, that, as Steve would say, is my own opinion. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Oct 20 13:47:12 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:47:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: NECESSITY of killing/ What would DD want? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002201c5d57c$c6c509b0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 141900 SSSusan: I know we're never going to convince each other, but I can't resist responding to this. You do realize when you say that this "may support the interpretation that Flamels were going to choose their great adventure soon anyways and they just made their choice faster," that it CLOSELY MIRRORS the argument many DDM!Snape or Things Aren't What They Appear on the Tower fans say, don't you? That is, that DD was *dying* on the Tower and knew it, that he was fully prepared for the next great adventure, that he wanted to die in such a way as to prevent Draco from murder and to get the DEs out of Hogwarts, but that he needed HELP to accomplish this? That his pleading to Snape was for Snape to provide that help? IOW, that he was choosing the great adventure (knew it was imminent), and that he just made the choice to get their faster? Sherry now: The difference i see--and I'm thinking in terms of the message children will get from the books in the end--is that the Flammels had lived way beyond their time, and I doubt Dumbledore took a wand and killed them to get it over quickly. The Flammels made the choice and they died of their own volition by agreeing to have the stone destroyed. On the other hand, on the tower, Dumbledore doesn't jump off the tower or anything that would imply he sacrificed himself. The killing was done at the hand of a trusted friend. Whether it was a genuine AK or any other spell, unless DD is not truly dead, then it's a whole different ball game to me. Even if others suggest that DD had the plan in advance with Snape, the fact still remains that Snape did the killing. To me, it is completely different than the Flammels agreeing to have the stone destroyed and dying in the natural course of events. They even had enough time to get their affairs together. Dumbledore's death left everything in chaos, and especially left and angry and out for revenge Harry. None of this seems like a good thing to tell children, that it could ever be ok to kill. i know I'm a broken record on that one, but i do feel it strongly. Killing in war? Even kids know that soldiers have to kill in war, but as I've said before, soldiers do not kill their own generals. If they do, they have a court martial and it is considered a very serious crime. i can't imagine how the deliberate killing of Dumbledore by Snape can ever be justifiable in terms of who the target audience of these books is. Sherry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 20 13:56:21 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:56:21 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" wrote: Deborah: > Hitler and Co. are useful examples; let's look at the other side. > And here some of my memory is in senile remission, but the facts are > look-uppable. > Dam-busters. Bombs that bounce on water, and in so doing get into > the right place to breach German dam walls and flood Nazi > installations in the valley. There was a book; also I think a > movie. But before there was anything, there was a designer of the > bouncing bombs. > This is History Channel stuff, but it convinces me. The designer ? > the bouncing-bomb boffin ? treated the design problem as an > exercise in logic and applied science. He applied his mind to the > problem, and designed what he'd been asked for. And the squadron > took off into the unknown. The bombs worked; but so did the > Luftwaffe, and after the raid some aircraft were badly damaged and > some had dead or injured crew members, and some never returned. And > suddenly it wasn't a logic puzzle any more, and he was deeply > traumatised at his own role in killing those young men he'd known > and admired; his own role in death which had become real to him in > a way he'd never expected. He gave up weapons design at that point. > So, we have a man, acting under orders and most certainly for the > Greater Good at that time, who didn't give his soul a thought until > the killing for which he was responsible actually happened. And then, > having collided with reality and mortality, he bailed out. Geoff: You are referring to Barnes Wallis (1887-1979). The film was "The Dambusters" (1955). Actually, he continued with weapons design afterwards. He was involved with the development of the 12000lb bomb in 1944 and the ten ton Grand Slam in 1945; after the war he was on the design team which developed swing-wing aircraft. There are other instances like this. I was watching a BBC progamme a few weeks ago about the bombing of Hiroshima and the horrific aftermath. I suppose one has to argue that these events have a strategic purpose in aiming to shorten the war. I am sure that US friends here on the group would agree that if their troops had had to fight their way across every island and then up the Japanese home islands to win, the human cost would have been far, far higher than it was. One event which I, as a Brit, have always considered dubious was the bombing of Dresden in 1945 when RAF commanders, knowing that the city was bursting at the seams with civilian refugees and almost an open target, went ahead with the raids which created a firestorm. In this case, I think that there was more an element of bloodymindedness than greater good. I might return to what I wrote in yesterday in message 141860: "Thinking over this topic, I felt perhaps I should extend the definition as little to be: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another for some personle gain." Murder is usually committed to satisfy some personal need of the perpetrator: getting revenge, getting rid of a rival, covering up another crime to mention but a few...." Although historical hindsight has cast shadows over some of these events, if those involved were, in their hearts, genuinely working for the greater good - the overthrow of tyranny and oppression - then in wizarding world terms, their souls should be intact. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 20 14:37:17 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:37:17 -0000 Subject: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141902 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > > > > Supposing that JKR did wish to indicate that the AK was possibly > fake and that conspiracy or legilimency between Snape and Dumbledore, unknown to Harry, was a possibility. What more should she have done to suggest this without giving the game away? > > > > Lupinlore: > Well, suggesting it isn't really the point. The point is that such > contrivance, suggested or not, is incredibly cheesy. "Oh, I'll show > this scene but manage to come up with some convoluted and > unbelievable way of completely turning the situation around so that > Harry is completely wrong about Snape (yet again) and Snape > completely in the clear." Pippin: This list is the wrong place to look for people who quit reading the series after PoA, but judging by the sales figures, the reading public did not abandon the series in disgust after the incredibly convoluted unbelievable way she completely turned the situation around so that Harry was wrong (once again) about Sirius and Sirius was completely in the clear In fact many people consider it their favorite book, and admire the way in which JKR got Sirius off the hook, despite the fact that it depends on a character we'd known for two books turning out to be something completely other than what we'd imagined, not to mention time-travel. I might point out that Sirius wasn't completely whitewashed -- he still frightened Ron with a knife and broke his leg, attacked Harry, vandalized the Fat Lady, and did things to young Snape that he wasn't proud of. > Lupinlore: , that he really HAS done something that serves Voldy's purposes (although maybe not for Voldy's reasons), and he is culpable for that. But, unlike ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape believes that when Snape was appearing to help Dumbledore, he really WAS helping Dumbledore (although maybe not for Dumbledore's reasons), and this gives precedent that allows for him to redeem himself in the end, although certainly at a very high cost. Pippin: Yeah, that's the part I don't get. Generally in redemption dramas, the worse the bad guy, the more dramatically powerful his redemption is. ESE!Snape I could see redeemed, DDM! Snape doesn't need redemption, and the drama would be in Harry's struggle to accept him the way he is (which puts Harry, not Snape, at the center, no matter how Snape acquitted himself on the tower) but OFH!Snape is just a weasel, and I don't care what happens to him. Anyway, most of the DE's are OFH by that definition. Only Barty Jr. was fighting for the rise of the Dark Forces, whatever they are, and he was clearly one or two figs short of a pudding. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 20 14:47:48 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:47:48 -0000 Subject: Destroying soul bits (was: How good Dumbledore is?/Killing a person or soul) In-Reply-To: <4357338F.3090709@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141903 KJ: > Plus, a question that I posted before, but has not been answered: Why > is it that no one on the list is at all concerned about killing > viable soul pieces. Why is it of concern that Harry might split his > soul killing Voldemort, but there is no concern about the destruction > of soul parts? Harry has been specifically sent after > Voldemort's souls. SSSusan: For clarification's sake, are you suggesting that it might be worse to kill the soul bits than to kill Voldy himself? Or are you wondering why it is that people seem to be concerned that Harry might end up a killer (by doing in Voldy in the end), but they don't seem concerned about his setting off to destroy soul bits? Assuming it's the latter question, I'll toss this out... and it may very well seem like a stupid answer, but.... I guess in my mind, when a person creates a horcrux, he has *already* sacrificed that part of his own soul. He doesn't CARE! So, yes, I agree with you that it's apparently something *viable,* but if it's already been sacrificed and cast off, in a sense, by its owner, should Harry or DD be concerned about destroying those bits? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 20 15:26:43 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:26:43 -0000 Subject: Wormtail at Spinner's End (WAS Re: New(?) questions about the Unbreakable Vow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141904 Nathaniel wrote: > I don't know if this sheds light on the ongoing discussion as to > Snape's motives, but I do believe that Snape is not on as solid > ground with Voldemort as he would have everyone believe. Perhaps > that is why he consented to the Unbreakable Vow? Whatever your > position on Snape (ESE, OFM, or DDM), it makes more sense to me that > he took the UV in order to show his allegience to the Dark Lord. SSSusan: Except that from the earlier bits of the conversation we have amongst Bellatrix, Narcissa and Snape, it seems that the Dark Lord might be exceedingly *dis*pleased that Snape & Narcissa made an Unbreakable Vow! Remember that both Bella & Snape insisted that if Voldy gave Draco a task and told Narcissa to speak to no one about it, then she should not violate that instruction. Given that, Voldy might look quite unkindly indeed upon these three having decided on their own to enter into this discussion, this course of action and an Unbreakable Vow. I mean, on one hand, we can all imagine Voldy's pleasure in the end if Snape ends up killing DD, but on the other hand, we can probably also imagine his initial displeasure when he discovers his orders have been not only ignored but roundly gone *against* by his supposedly loyal followers. Remember that Narcissa believes, and Snape & Bella seem to concur based upon their responses, that Voldy has assigned Draco this task precisely because he believes the kid will fail, and thus the Malfoy family will suffer its punishment for Lucius' failure in the DoM. If Voldy gets wind of Narcissa's rushing off to Snape for assistance, he will be greatly displeased. Thus, I have to disagree with the notion that Snape took the UV in order to show his allegiance to the Dark Lord. (I *do* think that making the UV demonstrated *to Bella* that his allegiance lay with the Dark Lord, but I don't think Voldy would have been as pleased to have heard about it as Bella was to watch it.) Siriusly Snapey Susan From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 20 15:57:27 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:57:27 -0000 Subject: House Unity--final goal? ( Re: Draco's life vs. Dumbledore's ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141905 > Magpie: > > Obviously I'm not suggesting that the seventh book will be all > > about Draco--or Snape. I am suggesting that a true understanding > > with a (formerly) DE Slytherin would potentially be a much greater > > victory than the saving of that one kid. And I think this seems > > important to the author as well, since she's come up with three > > versions of that kid. There's Regulus, whom we know turned > > against the DEs, but was unable to live and join with others > >(though his attempt to do so may finally come to light and thus > > help heal the rift). > > Jen: I wonder if the meaning of Sirius' death will come into play > here, that he learned more about Regulus while living in 12 > Grimmauld and never had the chance to tell Harry before dying? Don't > know how exactly, people have suggested Regulus is in the witness > protection program or the mirrors might forge the connection-- either > could work, or JKR could invent whatever magic she needs, even > taking Harry beyond the veil if the story calls for it! I see > potential for the Regulus storyline, but believe Harry will need > validation from Sirius in some form to believe it. > > You mentioned Snape and Draco as well, and without going to far into > it, I liked your point that Harry and Draco are the ones who can > sign the peace treaty of this generation, that Harry can't do > anything about the feud in the previous generation but has the power > to change the one in the present. Magpie: I normally don't think about specific things that might happen in the future, since I'm not very confident about my ability to predict what's in an author's head. But one thing that did come to my mind is to wonder if the finding and destroying of that Slytherin locket won't bring a lot of these elements together--Sirius, Regulus, Harry- -and Draco. In HBP there's that whole scene where Dumbledore has Harry test Kreacher to see if Sirius was really able to leave his stuff to Harry, because knowing the Blacks he thinks they may have put some charm on things to make sure it only goes to a family member. Nothing really comes of it since Kreacher does belong to Harry, and presumably the house as well, but I wondered if the idea introduced there of familial magic wouldn't come up later with the locket. I wondered if Regulus, being a "true Black" in the sense that he was still on the tapestry and possibly continued to see Sirius as a traitor (Sirius says most of his family supported Voldemort until they saw what he was really about; their loyalties always seemed to be more to each other than the cause, despite their beliefs), might have put some sort of a family charm on the locket which might require a Black from the tapestry's help. It seemed like a good way to force both sides to have to work with each other. Or maybe Sirius could have done it as a Black who is also a Pureblood (unlike Tonks) but now he's dead so they have to look elsewhere. Or maybe I just love the Blacks and long for a rise and fall and rise again story for them.:-) I do love in the books the way there's these imperfect parallels between the generations. Harry's generation may really do things right where the previous generation failed, mostly by all being completely different people in different situations. James is described as already doing the right thing by Snape by saving his life, but obviously this didn't end the feud. JKR may be working towards a more satisfying conclusion for both sides, where there's more respect on both sides. For instance, by having Draco start to lower his wand, and having Harry see this, it leaves Draco in a more independent position than Snape who'd had his life saved by James and now felt trapped in a Wizard's debt, you know? I'm hoping for an interesting resolution with this whole group.:-) -m From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 16:26:22 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:26:22 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141906 > > > Lupinlore: > > The problem with this, as with so many other such scenarios, is that > it effectively makes Snape the hero of the story. Not really --- any more than Albus coming to the rescue at the end of OoP makes HIM the hero of the story. In any case, Snape's motivations are still off-screen here, so the focus is still on Harry. Obviously if the tower scene had been written from Snape's POV that would be massively focus-pulling, but the way it's written the real payoff from that sequence would be where HARRY finds out what happened, and on what he decides to do about it. Whatever you think about Snape, his and Harry's is the books' central relationship-- it has been the most emotionally intense, the most consequential to events, and the one that's left in suspense going into the final act. Of course the nature of the relationship could be merely a straightforward protagonist/antagonist one, but I'd find that very surprising. --Sydney From muellem at bc.edu Thu Oct 20 16:58:01 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:58:01 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > The 'relapsed addict' theory of why D-dore wouldn't give him the job is clearly silly. Dumbledore is trusting Snape to infiltrate the Death Eaters. Obviously that would involve a great deal more temptation than teaching countercurses to a load of schoolkids. And what's to prevent Snape fiddling with Dark spells after-hours, with or without the DADA job? No, D-dore says he "trusts Snape absolutely", and that's flatly incompatible with "but I'm worried that he's Go Evil if allowed near textbooks on Hinkypunks". colebiancadi: I want to say I totally agree with your statement. It is a weak and extremely naive viewpoint to think that the only reason why DD wouldn't give Snape the DADA job is that Snape *might* revert to his old ways... > > In any event, we don't NEED any other theories about why D-dore didn't want to give Snape the job: there was a Curse on it. It is in fact, a rather specific curse, if you take a little time to break down the history of it. All the DADA teachers have had double lives, or some sort of disconnect between their public and private persona. They have, in fact, been Jeckyll-and-Hydes. Quirrel, Lupin, and Moody had literally two natures in one body; Lockhart was a fraud; Umbrige was described by JKR as "poisoned honey"-- a sweet exterior and deadly interior. > > Snape was a double-agent. When the curse kicks in, the result is always the same: catastrophic exposure of the victim's hidden dark side. Snape fits the pattern perfectly. I suspect D-dore knew the result of the curse was that Snape would be exposed as a Death Eater spy. He was only finally given the job when his position was already badly compromised and Dumbledore had taken a serious injury, so they were aware that the end-game was coming. colebiancardi: nothing to add - except to say - SPOT ON!!! Very good analysis. > > So, Dumbledore's end is pretty straightforward. But what's Snape's angle? > > My theory is: Snape didn't want the DADA job, he wanted the DADA curse. > . > > > colebiancardi again: Hmmm...I don't think Snape wants any curse, nor do I believe Snape is suicidal. I think that he takes a lot of risks for the greater good in defeating Voldy, but I think if he can figure out a way to live, he will do it. If Snape's remorse to DD included killing himself, then what is stopping Snape from offing himself over the last 16 years? Nothing. If someone is truly suicidal, they will find a way to kill themselves and they don't announce it. Those who wish to be *saved* from harming themselves tell the world about it. I think Snape is a lot of things, but I cannot imagine him being suicidal, regardless of what he may have done in the past. He doesn't behave like a person who wishes to kill themselves, so I cannot buy into that being the reason why DD trusts Snape so much. Nor, can I see JKR putting this little gem into book 7 - To kill oneself is not putting oneself into great personal risk, as DD describes Snape's conversion to the Order back in GoF - which was before Harry's parents were killed. Which is why I don't sail on the good ship LOLLIPOPS either :) However, I did enjoy your post up until the part of Suicidal!Snape :) colebiancardi (wonders if wizards ever do commit suicide?) From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Oct 20 17:42:34 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:42:34 -0000 Subject: JKR's own UV (was Re: Which characters are dynamic?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141908 > Pippin: > This list is the wrong place to look for people who quit reading the series after PoA, but > judging by the sales figures, the reading public did not abandon the series in disgust after > the incredibly convoluted unbelievable way she completely turned the situation around so > that Harry was wrong (once again) about Sirius and Sirius was completely in the clear > In fact many people consider it their favorite book, and admire the way in which JKR got > Sirius off the hook, despite the fact that it depends on a character we'd known for two > books turning out to be something completely other than what we'd imagined, not to > mention time-travel. > > Lupinlore: Ah, but Scabbers had never been a main player until the third book. Much more importantly, the convolutions concern something that happened off screen and concern characters we don't know. To get Snape completely in the clear, however, involves asking us to believe that a pivotal scene what we saw with our own eyes (i.e. with Harry's eyes) is in fact something else entirely. THAT is an entirely different kettle of fish, particularly when dealing with a scene that is much more important and crucial than Harry on his broom in PS/SS or any other examples that come to mind. It also asks us to believe that characters whom we have known for a long time would act in ways that a great many of us find to be blatantly OOC according to the way they have been presented to us. And, you are quite right that it might be in the service of a set of moral message that some of us would find objectionable if not downright insipid. But then maybe not, as DDM!Snape could be at the service of any number of messages, as could ESE! and OFH! Snape. In any case, getting Snape into the clear is possible to do, of course, but whereas on the cheesy scale PoA had a mild whiff of cheddar, this would smell of several pounds of limburger. As I said before, to many of us unbelievable, thematically and emotionally a betrayal, and aesthetically repugnant. But, of course, exactly the same objections can and have been raised about a guilty Snape. It requires characters that we have seen and known for a long time to be OOC according to how they have been presented. It undermines important moral messages and implies a morality that is objectionable. It would be cheesy for Harry to be right after all and DD to be wrong. It would be unbelievable, thematically and emotionally a betrayal, and aesthetically repugnant. Which, as I say, amounts to JKR being in a corner, or up a tree, or whatever metaphor you want to use. Whichever way she moves to come out, the response will probably make the controversies that attended OOTP and HBP look mild by comparison. Of course, that can be amusing in its own right. Oddly, in many ways I think JKR resembles Snape in the Spinners End chapter. By taking the UV he narrowed his options drastically with no good way out. The tower scene was JKR's UV. She has narrowed her options drastically with no good way out. But the outcome for her will be much better. :-) Lupinlore From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 18:11:02 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:11:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's own UV (was Re: Which characters are dynamic?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141909 > > To get Snape completely in the clear, however, involves asking us to > believe that a pivotal scene what we saw with our own eyes (i.e. > with Harry's eyes) is in fact something else entirely. LOL, that's what I would have considered the STRONGEST arguement against ESE!Snape! JKR LOVES that sort thing, making you go back and reread everything with a completely different understanding. CoS Ginny, anyone? >It also > asks us to believe that characters whom we have known for a long > time would act in ways that a great many of us find to be blatantly > OOC according to the way they have been presented to us. And, you > are quite right that it might be in the service of a set of moral > message that some of us would find objectionable if not downright > insipid. But then maybe not, as DDM!Snape could be at the service > of any number of messages, as could ESE! and OFH! Snape. > > In any case, getting Snape into the clear is possible to do, of > course, but whereas on the cheesy scale PoA had a mild whiff of > cheddar, this would smell of several pounds of limburger. As I said > before, to many of us unbelievable, thematically and emotionally a > betrayal, and aesthetically repugnant. > > But, of course, exactly the same objections can and have been raised > about a guilty Snape. It requires characters that we have seen and > known for a long time to be OOC according to how they have been > presented. It undermines important moral messages and implies a > morality that is objectionable. It would be cheesy for Harry to be > right after all and DD to be wrong. It would be unbelievable, > thematically and emotionally a betrayal, and aesthetically repugnant. > That about sums it up, yep. Although I'd say it's perfectly possible for Snape at the end to satisfy most people, in being both a repugnant jackass and a tormented soul trying to do the right thing. The only people likely to be dissapointed, IMO, are those looking for a cartoon villain. -- Sydney From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 18:11:07 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:11:07 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: <88.31ad8e70.30885ffd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141910 > Julie: > Oddly, I think it's just the opposite ;-) > > Starting with the "missing 5 hours," it is there as canon if you do the > math, in the same way that several other math-based inconsistencies > are there (like Bill and Charlie's ages). Neri: Except that the Bill and Charlie's ages inconsistency is of no importance to the plot, while the missing 5 hrs are smack in the middle of the most action-packed climax of the series, which takes less than 12 hours whole. In addition, the Bill and Charlie's ages inconsistency is between two conflicting timelines implied by the plot, but here we only have one canonical and well-established timeline, and the inconsistency is only with Dumbledore's very vague and hole-riddled explanations that everybody acted "at once". Only if everybody acted at once, how come Harry is having a public collapse, breaks into Umbridge's office, reports a mind attack by Voldemort, taken at wand point to the Forbidden Forest, closely saved from a herd of rampaging centaurs by a rampaging giant, takes a flight all the way from Scotland to London on invisible horses, enters a breached and deserted Ministry, tours the wonders of the Department of Mystery and has a chat with a bunch of Death Eaters, and he still beats the Order to the mark? Calling this a "math-based inconsistency" is a bit of an understatement. > Julie: > But within canon there is > NO later reference to validate any plot significance. Dumbledore > never brings it up, no one ever does, Neri: This isn't accurate. The question of who is responsible for Sirius' death is certainly discussed. Harry brings it up immediately and Dumbledore nobly shoulders it all himself while avoiding a satisfying recount of the Order's point of view. > Julie: > not then and not later (a later > possibility being one of the Order--say McGonagall--commenting > after Snape has killed Dumbledore, "I always wondered why it took > Snape so long to summon the Order to the Department of Mysteries. > He must have done it on purpose, to help Voldemort get to Harry!" or > some such.) Neri: As I wrote here before, that would have been a bit cumbersome writing for JKR, because it isn't easy to explain the timeline issue in a single sentence, or even in a single paragraph, and it was also slightly redundant anyway, seeing that Snape had just stunned a teacher, AKed the headmaster and ran away with a bunch of DEs. > Julie: > Neither does Snape mention it at a time he might be > expected to, during his self-defense speech to Bellatrix ("I also > delayed the Order's arrival at the Department of Mysteries. It's not > my fault you and the others couldn't do your part before the Order > arrived"). Neri: It wouldn't be good politic for Snape to mention it at that point, because it would be tantamount to admitting that he *did* warn the Order in the end, and Bella would immediately accuse him of failing the operation. However, Snape does claim a part in getting rid of Black. > Ceridwen: > In Spinner's End, page 29 US, Bellatrix seems to think the Order showed > up much too soon: > "They were joined, as you very well know, by half of the Order before > long!" snarled Bellatrix. > > Snape doesn't say anything to this, as Bellatrix moves on to why he > doesn't reveal the location of Order headquarters, and it's just left > lying in the dust. 'Before long' indicates something less than five > hours, to me. Neri: Bellatrix has a good personal reason to shorten the time she and nine other DEs couldn't beat six unqualified teenagers. In addition, it seems Bellatrix only refers to the time since the DEs surprised Harry in the DoM, not to the flight from Scotland and the adventures in the Forbidden Forest (I'm not sure she even knows about this part). > Julie: > Given that lack of evidence of any deliberate delay on the > part of Snape, the most *likely* conclusion is that the inconsistency > was unintentional, a simple maths error on the part of JKR. Not the > only conclusion, mind you, but the most likely conclusion. > Neri: A possible conclusion ? yes, although as I wrote it would amount to a BIG plotting hole, not a "simple math error". The most likely? This is for everybody to decide. What I find interesting here is that JKR invested considerable effort in Snape's controversial involvement in the OotP climax. She could have easily avoided having Umbridge invite him to her office at all, therefore taking any responsibility from of his shoulders and supplying a very satisfying explanation why it took the Order several hours to respond. Yet JKR insisted on shoving him into the middle of this plot, telling us he understood Harry was under a mind attack by Voldemort, and then she had Dumbledore covering up for him in a rather unsatisfying manner, all this while she knew of her plans for Snape in HBP. It was very bad plotting by her if she didn't consider the elementary timeline of Snape's involvement. > Julie: > When it comes to Dumbledore's expression, you're right that canon > simply states that he's looks like he's sleeping. But canon also adds > that Harry straightens Dumbledore's glasses and contemplates his > face. When someone looks like they're sleeping, it generally implies > a peaceful or composed expression (and looking years younger, as > the face is relaxed, with worry lines erased). Neri: But Harry also notes Dumbledore face look "old", which by your logic would imply worry lines, which would imply a not peaceful expression. > Julie: >It doesn't *have* to mean > that, but it is by far the most common interpretation. Neri: There's also a subtle difference between "he looks like he's sleeping" and "he might have been sleeping", which is the canon version. For me "he might have been sleeping" seems to mean: "from Dumbledore's face alone you couldn't be sure he's dead". I think this is an equally possible interpretation as a "peaceful expression". > Julie: > And if Harry saw > something in Dumbledore's face to indicate less than that peaceful or > composed expression, he certainly would have made note of it. Ergo, > it's a fairly straightforward deduction that Dumbledore in death did > appear quite peaceful. > Neri: Isn't this argument slightly circular? You interpret the description to imply a peaceful expression, and therefore you conclude that if Harry saw anything less than peaceful expression, he would have made note of it. Since he didn't note it, it proves it was a peaceful expression. I'm not a logician but this seems faulty somehow. Here's an alternative argument: when Harry sees Dumbledore's body, he already thinks Dumbledore is dead (this is canon), although he would certainly be glad to be proved wrong on this. Wouldn't he therefore make note of anything that would indicate less than dead? The strongest such thing he notes is that Dumbledore's face "might have been sleeping". If there were also a peaceful expression, surely Harry would have made explicit note of it? > Julie: > The assumption comes more in theorizing *why* he looks peaceful, > whether it's simply because his death didn't hurt/released his pain, or > because he died content that he'd accomplished his objectives and > was satisfied with his life and manner of death. Neri: Theorizing *why* he looks peaceful depends not only on the assumption that he *does* look peaceful, but also on the assumption that his not- explicitly-mentioned expression is relevant for the plot at all. Not that this should stop anybody from theorizing, of course, but to be fair to the opposing theories I like to be clear about the assumptions in each theory. Neri From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 20 18:17:02 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:17:02 -0000 Subject: JKR's own UV (was Re: Which characters are dynamic?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141911 > Lupinlore: > To get Snape completely in the clear, however, involves asking us to > believe that a pivotal scene what we saw with our own eyes (i.e. > with Harry's eyes) is in fact something else entirely. Hickengruendler: Which isn't exactly new in the Potter universe either. In fact, the plot twist in PS worked exactly like that. We saw with our own eyes, how Snape wanted to kill Harry. Except ... he didn't and was in fact murmuring counter-courses trying to save Harry. JKR gave an accurate description of what happens in the Quidditch-scene. She did not lie to us. We (and the characters) could trust our eyes. But what we could not trust, were the characters' interpretations. Therefore, if for example Dumbledore's pleading means: "Severus, please kill me", it would be a very similar scene to the one in PS. The description of the scene was accurate, but the characters' interpretations of it not. And it's not, that there aren't any hints at all in the books. After all, there are Dumbledore's words that he knew more than Harry thought and he knew. And there is the fact, that JKR hit us over the heads in the previous books as well as in this one, that Dumbledore does not fear death. I can't speak for anyone else, but I at least had the "Snape acts on DD's order" theory from the very moment on I read that scene. I don't consider it as to cheesy or contrived, but a very logical conclusion from what I saw. (Of course that doesn't mean that is has to be true. But if the solution is indeed something like this, I won't think at all that JKR cheated us, but that she chose a solution to the Snape mystery, that is IMO completely based from what is presented to us in the books). > THAT is an > entirely different kettle of fish, particularly when dealing with a > scene that is much more important and crucial than Harry on his > broom in PS/SS or any other examples that come to mind. Hickengruendler: Well, I would say the Harry on his broom incident is very important to the plot of that book. And if the first book hadn't been successfull, and JKR might not have been able to publish the rest, it would have been important to the whole storyline. But of course you are right, that now the DD death scene is much more important. Still I don't see why this should make any difference. She has given us some clues, after all. Hickengruendler From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 18:37:26 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:37:26 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Dumbledore's_"=93peaceful_expression=94=3F_(was:_Dumbledore's_pleading)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141912 Here is a short conversation about spectacles CV: I think part of the "peaceful look" extension comes from the fact that he is still wearing his specticles, which are just crooked. Given all the recent activity, one would have expected his glasses to be in worse condition or missing, wouldn't you say? Unless you believe, as I do, that it's all a fake. Finwitch: Not in the world of Unbreakable Charms. Hermione put one on the glass- jar she had Rita in, remember? I'm positive that Albus Dumbledore, Minerva McGonagall, Percy Weasley and Rita Skeeter all have Unbreakable Charms on their glasses. Now me again: CV: You have a point about Unbreakable Charms. But I haven't heard of an Un-Lose-able Charm. And we don't know if any Unbreakables might have been put on his specs, either, for that matter. I think the fact that his glasses are in such remarkable condition is the result of a soft landing. You don't have to agree with me. That's what we are all here for. But I have a firm ticket to sail on the Wily Headmaster Is Sneakily Twisting Most Awful Scenario (W.H.I.S.T.M.A.S.) ~CV From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 19:17:55 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:17:55 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141913 > colebiancardi again: > > Hmmm...I don't think Snape wants any curse, nor do I believe Snape is > suicidal. I think that he takes a lot of risks for the greater good > in defeating Voldy, but I think if he can figure out a way to live, > he will do it. If Snape's remorse to DD included killing himself, > then what is stopping Snape from offing himself over the last 16 > years? Part of the theory is that he made some sort of promise to Dumbledore (not an Unbreakable Vow.. that would be a little counterproductive!) that he would not take his own life. I mean, the guy's one of the world's leading experts on poisons, clearly he could bump himself off without a lot of hassle if it was that simple. Partly I think Snape wants to go out a hero, so he could have viewed being dramatically outed as a double-agent as being rich in possibilities for that. Perhaps I should call it Deathwish!Snape, instead. It just seems to me that Snape being after the DADA job is hard to separate from Snape wanting the DADA curse. If he didn't know about the curse, we're back to the lame, "Chemistry teacher who's desperate to teach Physics" scenario, which is just plain lacking in emotional content. But I find it hard to believe that Dumbeldore DIDN'T tell him about the Curse. I suspect, by the way, that he warned Lupin about it-- in HBP, Lupin tells Harry that his lycanthropy "would have come out anyways"; and cuddly Albus putting his friends in a cursed post without telling them, I can't really get my head around. I wonder if Moody cheerfully thought he had no dark secrets, and would therefore leave fairly innocuously? I have a smaller theory to offer, for those who don't like their Snapes suicidal-- he COULD have just viewed the 'leaving Hogwarts' part of the curse as the bonus, and his ritual application was a 'take this job and shove it' gesture. What that lacks is the explanatory scope of deathwish!Snape, which also covers the Vow and the tale of remorse, as well as being more in keeping with the crazy melodrama of the HP universe. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 19:22:17 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:22:17 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing/ What would DD want? In-Reply-To: <002201c5d57c$c6c509b0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > SSSusan: > ... > > You do realize when you say that this "may support the > interpretation that Flamels were going to choose their great > adventure soon anyways and they just made their choice faster," ... > > That is, that DD was *dying* on the Tower and knew it, that he was > fully prepared for the next great adventure, that he wanted to die > in such a way as to prevent Draco from murder and to get the DEs out > of Hogwarts, but that he needed HELP to accomplish this? ... > > > > Sherry now: > > ... The Flammels made the choice and they died of their own > volition by agreeing to have the stone destroyed. On the other > hand, on the tower, Dumbledore doesn't jump off the tower or > anything that would imply he sacrificed himself. The killing was > done at the hand of a trusted friend.... the fact still remains > that Snape did the killing. To me, it is completely different > ... None of this seems like a good thing to tell children, that > it could ever be ok to kill. ... > bboyminn: A couple of points... First, Dumbledore could die and let his death mean nothing or he could die and let his death have value; either way, he is dead. True, he could have just jumped over the edge of the tower, but what value would that have? If Snape kills him, Snape becomes the greatest (OK, second greatest) Dark Wizard who ever live; he killed the great and mighty Dumbledore. Voldemort can't help but honor and trust Snape after that. Even if he is still suspicious of Snape, he will have a hard time justifying that suspicion. Snape will now get what every Death Eater has been vying for since the very beginning, he will be 'honored above all others', and more importantly TRUSTED above all others. With Dumbledore's /actual/ self-sacrifice, nobody gets anything. With Dumbledore's /assisted/ self-sacrifice, Snape is put in an extremely advantageous position. That makes him closer to and more trusted by Voldemort that any other living person. THAT certainly has advantages to the cause. > Sherry coontinues: > > Killing in war? Even kids know that soldiers have to kill in > war, but as I've said before, soldiers do not kill their own > generals. If they do, they have a court martial and it is > considered a very serious crime. I can't imagine how the > deliberate killing of Dumbledore by Snape can ever bejustifiable > in terms of who the target audience of these books is. > > Sherry bboyminn: Sorry, but these books were NEVER written as children's books. They were written with GENERAL audiences in mind; no swearing, no sex, etc.... JKR said she wrote these books for herself, and if other people also enjoyed them fine, but she wasn't targeting any audiences. She wasn't contouring her message for anyone's sensibilities. It was the decision of the Publishers to promote the book to young readers. They made a marketing decision on how best to SELL the books, but again, they were never created with that audience in mind. JKR had a story to tell, and she told it the way it needed to be told. She had to satisfy herself and the story, and was willing to except whatever outcome that produced. So, I would be careful about /assuming/ that JKR is constructing these books with a child-specific audience, and therefore, child-specific messages in mind. I think the true massive appeal of JKR's books, is that JKR isn't targeting any audience; her books have a deep universal appeal that is very rare in literature today. In a much broader sense, much like Shakespear and other classics, JKR tells the only story ever told; the universal hero's journey. As far as soldiers killing their own generals, GOOD soldiers do what must be done; they make the sacrifices that must be made. Sometimes your generals, in general, really do need killing. ...sad as that may be. As I've said several times before, even under the best of circumstances no good wizard will ever forget or forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore, but I think when the circumstances are revealed, they will understand. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From ragingjess at hotmail.com Thu Oct 20 19:32:32 2005 From: ragingjess at hotmail.com (Jessica Bathurst) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:32:32 -0400 Subject: OFH! Snape and Harry (was: Re: Which characters are dynamic?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141915 Lupinlore: OFH!Snape believes that when Snape was appearing to help Dumbledore, he really WAS helping Dumbledore (although maybe not for Dumbledore's reasons), and this gives precedent that allows for him to redeem himself in the end, although certainly at a very high cost. Jessica: The discussion of Snape's loyalty has been revolving around a conflict with two sides: Dumbledore's (good) and Voldemort's (evil). However, given that the prophecy predicts that a third person (you know, Harry) will have the power to defeat the Dark Lord, doesn't this raise the possibility that there's another factor in this conflict? 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? If the man's truly considering all the angles, wouldn't he want to be in good with Harry, on the off chance that Harry actually is the one with the power? There's nothing that says that Harry's going to be a good egg and obey the Headmaster. (In fact, Snape mentions that some thought Harry might have been a wee Dark Lord in the making, so even if he's not serious, he's at least thought of it.) What if Harry breaks with Dumbledore and starts his own faction? Has Snape decided that the Prophecy doesn't matter at all, and that Harry's not a factor in his calculations? Or is Snape so emotionally stunted that he can't even consider the possibility of working with Harry? (In this case, how much does he really want to keep his options open?) Both ESE! and DDM!Snape don't have this issue, because in both cases Snape's sworn allegiance to someone who is not Harry and is following that man's orders. Neither one of them seemed too concerned about his treatment of Harry. Pippin: OFH!Snape is just a weasel, and I don't care what happens to him. Jessica: He's not even a successful weasel, when you think about it. The UV and all. Yours, Jessica P.S. I cannot resist replying to this: justcarol67: And did anyone notice the "we shall arrange for the President [of the United States?] to forget to call" (Am. ed. 3)? Memory Charms in the Oval Office? Moles in the White House?) Jessica: Two words: Linda Tripp. A Slytherin if I ever saw one. From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 20:20:58 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:20:58 -0000 Subject: OFH! Snape and Harry (was: Re: Which characters are dynamic?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141916 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jessica Bathurst" 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? There are any number of possible answers to this question (which is also interesting to ponder from ESE! and DDM! angles as well). 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. > Both ESE! and DDM!Snape don't have this issue, because in both > cases Snape's sworn allegiance to someone who is not Harry and is > following that man's orders. Neither one of them seemed too > concerned about his treatment of Harry. Disagree about Dumbledore to some extent: I think he has reigned in Snape in some areas, but see above for why he wouldn't in others. > Pippin: > OFH!Snape is just a weasel, and I don't care what happens to > him. > > Jessica: > > He's not even a successful weasel, when you think about it. The UV > and all. But he's (IMHO) potentially a very compelling fall from grace story, almost classical in his undoing via his own character flaws. This has some things going for it in the possiblity category. Either ESE or DDM!Snape is something of a grand figure, heroic in evil or in good. But I think we often forget how downright ridiculous Rowling likes to make Snapeykins: spitting and flying into rages hysterical, or exiting stage left pursued by hippogryff. Many people (elsewhere) mostly were annoyed at his exit (and speeches) at the end of the book, calling them OOC for making him seem so unbalanced and silly. I thought it was the right measure of the man; consistent, at the least... -Nora has a drinkie and goes to lecture From muellem at bc.edu Thu Oct 20 20:25:16 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:25:16 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141917 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > colebiancardi again: > > > > Hmmm...I don't think Snape wants any curse, nor do I believe Snape is > > suicidal. I think that he takes a lot of risks for the greater good > > in defeating Voldy, but I think if he can figure out a way to live, > > he will do it. If Snape's remorse to DD included killing himself, > > then what is stopping Snape from offing himself over the last 16 > > years? > > Part of the theory is that he made some sort of promise to Dumbledore > (not an Unbreakable Vow.. that would be a little counterproductive!) > that he would not take his own life. I mean, the guy's one of the > world's leading experts on poisons, clearly he could bump himself off > without a lot of hassle if it was that simple. Partly I think Snape > wants to go out a hero, so he could have viewed being dramatically > outed as a double-agent as being rich in possibilities for that. > Perhaps I should call it Deathwish!Snape, instead. > > It just seems to me that Snape being after the DADA job is hard to > separate from Snape wanting the DADA curse. If he didn't know about > the curse, we're back to the lame, "Chemistry teacher who's desperate > to teach Physics" scenario, which is just plain lacking in emotional > content. But I find it hard to believe that Dumbeldore DIDN'T tell > him about the Curse. Snape may have a deathwish, but that is quite different from being suicidal. I can see Deathwish!Snape in the sense that he will do anything, even *tearing his soul*, to tip the balance for a favorable outcome of the war to the Order. I can see Deathwish!Snape talking the DADA job, knowing there was a curse (I do believe he knows there is a curse on the job - he hasn't worked at Hogwarts for 16 years and gone as a student for 7 yrs without noticing that DADA teachers never last more than one year and probably DD told him about it) that would put him back full-time in LV's lair. I can see Deathwish!Snape running a role as a double-agent. But to me, Deathwish!Snape is not careless or reckless with his life, but he knows that his job could cost him his life and he accepts that. > > > I have a smaller theory to offer, for those who don't like their > Snapes suicidal-- he COULD have just viewed the 'leaving Hogwarts' > part of the curse as the bonus, and his ritual application was a 'take > this job and shove it' gesture. What that lacks is the explanatory > scope of deathwish!Snape, which also covers the Vow and the tale of > remorse, as well as being more in keeping with the crazy melodrama of > the HP universe. > nah. I don't think he thinks it is a bonus, because he is going from the pan into the fire(Voldemort's camp). He is a wanted man now and if he is DDM!Snape, he is going to have an uphill battle convicing the Order that he is still on their side - unless there is someone else in the Order that knows Snape's role. I find it hard to believe that DD would leave Snape hanging in the wind like this, without a life-line. As far as the remorse tale, I personally like my theory (yup, plugging it again - haven't changed my mind on it yet) with Regulus and Snape. colebiancardi From Sherry at PebTech.net Thu Oct 20 20:30:16 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:30:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141918 nanuknnatasha: > I think that for something as momentous to the readers as contact > between the Ministry and the PM, it should have come right where it > did....With > it being included in the book where things really start to "hit the > fan", it serves the purpose of really driving home the desperation > of the Ministry to stop Voldemort, and the terror of those who know > what's really going on. After all, being an ignorant Muggle isn't > going to save them... I think that's exactly why JKR used it here (and why I, for one, liked it so much!) The critical information in this chapter is that Voldemort's return and the revolt of his movement is starting to affect everyone--Muggles and the PM's Government, not just the WW and the Ministry of Magic. It follows up on what we saw after the Quiddich championship in GoF: how willing and even eager Voldemort's supporters are to strike at everyone they see as "mere" enemies who happen to be at hand. If JKR had included a scene between the PM and MoM in PS/SS, I assume that, as others here have estimated, it would have taken place in the same time as Ch. 1 there, around Voldemort's first downfall. If the scene had taken place in PoA, it would probably have been the kind of thing the PM recalls here, with Fudge informing him about Black's escape. But this is definitely the best place to include the encounter, underlining *how* big an impact LV's return has on both magical and Muggle worlds. Amontillada From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 21:11:54 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:11:54 -0000 Subject: Snape and DADA from DD's perspective (Was: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141919 Carol: Let me preface my remarks by stating that I *do* see the discrepancy between the statements by Snape and others that he applied for the DADA post every year and the conflicting evidence Goddlefrood cited, and I remain confused as to whether the conflicts are Flints or red herrings. I have my own ideas as to why Snape would apply for a cursed position (nothing to do with suicide), but in this post, I want to concentrate on why DD didn't hire him for DADA until HBP despite his knowledge of the subject. So please forgive me, Goddlefrood, for ignoring the question of whether Snape actually wanted or applied for a position he must have known to be cursed. I do have some doubts on that subject, but I want to focus on some particular points where I disagree with you rather than on the argument as a whole. I believe that Dumbledore held off giving Snape the post for sixteen years because he wanted him at Hogwarts, and the only way to do that was to keep him as Potions Master, a position for which he was equally qualified. DD also had specific reasons in some cases, notably those of Lupin and the real Moody, for hiring a particular teacher in a particular year. And there were reasons as well why he chose to allow Umbridge into the school rather than giving Snape the position while Voldemort was preoccupied with the Prophecy. (More on that in a moment.) Goddlefrood asked: Do you really think that if Snape had applied Dumbledore would not, however reluctantly, have given him the job, mostly because of his aversion to Ministry interference? > Christina responded: > I can see how there might be doubt, but I believe it. Dumbledore needed Snape at Hogwarts as a double agent for as long as possible. I think that the need to get Slughorn to Hogwarts gave Dumbledore the final little push that convinced him that giving Snape the DADA job was his only choice. Carol adds: Even Umbridge was preferable, from DD's perspective, to losing Snape at a time when he was most useful to the Order and could teach both Potions and Occlumency (the failure of the Occlumency lessons is irrelevant here). And Voldemort, though restored to his body, is not yet waging open war. Dumbledore does not yet need Snape's DADA (and Dark Arts) expertise. What he does need is to keep him at Hogwarts in his usual capacity as Potions Master, rule enforcer, and righthand man, holding his DADA skills in reserve until they are more desperately needed, which is exactly what occurs the following year. In HBP, more is at stake than Dumbledore's need for Slughorn's memory, which is only one factor among many in his decision to give Snape the DADA post. Circumstances have changed. The war is on. Another Potions master, whom DD happens to want at Hogwarts for other reasons, is available to replace Snape if DD moves him to the DADA position. Conveniently, this teacher is also a Slytherin, who can take Snape's place as HoH when he inevitably loses his position at the end of the year as the result of the DADA curse. DD has no need for two Potions masters, but, as ever, he has a DADA vacancy, and, as in OoP, no one has (apparently) applied for the cursed DADA position--unless Snape himself has done so, and I believe he has. It's Snape or no one (unless the MoM supplies another candidate, not a desirable option). In these dangerous times, Dumbledore can't afford *not* to use Snape's skills (discussed later in this post), even though he knows that Snape won't be back the following year. Perhaps he suspects that he himself won't be back. But curse or no curse, he can't put off hiring Snape to teach DADA any longer. He has no other choice. Whether he likes it or not, it's time. (On a side note, I think that Snape knows all this when he talks to Narcissa and Bellatrix in "Spinner's End" but doesn't want to reveal yet that he's taken the cursed one-year position. But surely DD would not have approached Slughorn to teach Potions without consulting Snape first, either telling him that he'd accepted his DADA application or giving him the choice of taking that accursed position, nor would he have approached Slughorn to take the Potions job if it weren't vacant. So to all intents and purposes, IMO, Snape *is* the DADA teacher in "Spinner's End"--and already subject to the curse.) Goddlefrood wrote: > > I thought the only useful thing Snape taught them was non-verbal spells, and he didn't really teach that did he? He expected people to do it. The rest of what we saw had previously been covered, and in my view quite a lot better than Severus managed it. > Christina responded: > Not exactly. What directions can you give for casting non-verbal spells other than "cast a spell without speaking"? And Snape doesn't expect people to do it right off the bat- he says, "One partner will attempt to jinx the other without speaking. The other will attempt to repel the jinx in equal silence." He has them practice on each other to make it work. Snape gives no fewer directions than other teachers we've seen (IIRC, most of the class sessions at Hogwarts consist of students actively refining practical technique. Not much instruction is given when it comes to skill-based magic). Carol adds: Let's see. Quirrell taught the Gryffindors how to treat a werewolf bite (without curing the werewolf) but nothing else that we can determine from canon; Lockhart taught taught them not to release a cageful of Cornish Pixies into a classroom and how to drop your wand if you're duelling Severus Snape; Lupin taught them how to deal with a variety of minor Dark creatures such as Hinkypunks, Boggarts, and Grindylows (useful if Voldemort intends to use these creatures but not much help if you're dealing with a Death Eater); Crouch!Moody demonstrated the Unforgiveable Curses on spiders, upsetting Neville (whose parents he had helped Crucio into insanity) and Imperioed all the students, giving Harry the opportunity to resist the curse but not teaching anyone else how to do it; Umbridge teaches them theory (including the idea that countercurses are really curses) but does not allow them to use their wands in the classroom. As Christina pointed out in a snipped portion of her post, Umbridge was wrong in this approach, which is essentially useless. (On a side note, Snape has in some way opposed all these DADA teachers, helping to expose their incompetence or outright evil intentions, whether as DD's Man or out of rivalry or as an unwitting agent of the DADA curse, I can't say. I suspect it's all of the above, but I don't want to get sidetracked by pursuing the topic.) Snape, in contrast, takes a practical approach, acting as coach and supervisor as Harry and his classmates attempt nonverbal jinxes/hexes and nonverbal defensive maneuvers--highly useful if you're battling a Death Eater and don't want him or her to anticipate your next move. He also teaches them an alternate way (unfortunately not specified) to deal with Dementors, quite possibly useful for students who can't conjure up the happy memory needed to cast Expecto Patronum while facing a Dementor who wants to suck the happiness out of you. And he has graphic posters of Dark Creatures to make sure that his students know one when they see one. (In past years he has taught students to treat poisons with a bezoar, SS/PS; to disarm an enemy using Expelliarmus, CoS; and to recognize a werewolf, PoA--all useful defenses against Dark Arts and/or Dark wizards.) In HBP, we see him (all too briefly) dealing with sixth-year Gryffindors (no Slytherins, Ravenclaws, or Hufflepuffs in the DADA class), most if not all of whom have had DADA lessons with Harry and presumably did well on their DADA OWLs in consequence. Unlike the younger students in classes we don't see, Harry's classmates don't need to learn new defensive spells at this point; they need to practice using what they know nonverbally as a further defensive measure. (Snape, as we see later, is an expert at this technique, which, combined with quick reflexes and Legilimency, makes him a formidable duellist. No wonder he sneered disdainfully at Lockhart in the duelling club chapter of CoS.) It's possible, of course, that the students do learn additional defensive spells but we don't see those lessons. What we also don't see is Harry viewing the lessons (with the exception of the Dementor essay, about which I believe he's mistaken) as useless or complaining about Snape's unfairness. And in contrast to his view of the Occlumency lessons, Harry doesn't complain that the DADA classes are harming rather than helping him or his classmates. Nor do we have any indication that Snape is teaching any of his students, including the Slytherins, the Dark Arts themselves, as indicated by Draco's scorn for *Defense Against* the Dark Arts when Snape confronts him about what he's up to. IOW, DD's supposed fear that the DADA class will bring out the worst in Snape is not justified (if he ever really had such a fear). Certainly he has not hesitated all these years to hire Snape to teach DADA because he considers him unqualified, nor is it likely that Snape is not interested in teaching the subject. We have all sorts of evidence, from young Severus's detailed answers on his DADA OWL in OoP and the spells he invented as a teenager (only one of them Dark) and his skill at duelling that he is, indeed, highly qualified to teach the DADA course. And certainly, if it weren't for the curse placed on it by Voldemort, Dumbledore would have been wise to assign it to him long before. DADA is an important course and Snape knows his stuff. But the curse makes all the difference. IMO. it's not the consequences of having Snape teach the class but the consequences of the DADA curse *specifically for Snape* that Dumbledore fears. He must give the class to *someone*, but for as long as possible, he avoids giving it to Snape, for whom a curse placed by Voldemort himself will surely have terrible consequences. Better to hire an incompetent teacher like Lockhart or give a one-year position to a werewolf or an ex-Auror or even accept a bureaucrat imposed by the MoM than to risk Snape's return to the Death Eaters or his murder--or some terrible unforeseen predicament like the one that actually arises from the Unbreakable Vow. If DD wants Snape with him and away from the Death Eaters, either for Snape's own safety or to prevent him from falling back into his old ways, he might as well take advantage of Snape's prodigious skills as a potion maker to have him teach an uncursed course. And as Potions Master, he can provide DD with potions that few other instructors could prepare. He is at hand to provide Veritaserum and Wolfbane Potion when needed (and to provide fake Veritaserum to Umbridge). I believe he provides the Mandrake Restorative Potion in CoS as well though he does not administer it. In addition, Snape patrols the halls and enforces the rules, watching over Harry and his friends (and perhaps his own Slytherins) in particular. He is on hand to help deal with both Quirrell and Crouch!Moody and to expose Lockhart by proposing that he rescue Ginny from the monster (providing Harry with the opportunity to actually do so). In short, whatever his deficiencies in promoting his students' self-esteem or worrying about their feelings, he is a very valuable man to have around, not to mention his services as a double agent when school is not in session. This relationship continues through the end of OoP. Even though DD is absent from the school for part of the year, Snape continues to report to him. And it's Snape, of course, who sends the Order to the MoM to save Harry and company. In part because Snape is so useful, even valuable, in so many capacities, DD trusts him completely and fears to lose him, as shown by his apprehension when Snape leaves to explain why he wasn't at the graveyard and convince Voldemort of his loyalty. DD doesn't speak for several minutes even though Snape states that he's "ready" and "prepared." This incident, like Snape's thrusting his Dark Mark under Fudge's nose to convince him that Voldemort has returned, show Snape's remarkable courage and loyalty to Dumbledore--or at least that's how Dumbledore sees it (and I believe that he's right). Indeed, GoF provides our best evidence that Snape is Dumbledore's man--but what's relevant here is DD's reluctance to lose his services and his loyalty. Perhaps he even loves Snape as a son and fears for his life despite repeatedly sending him on dangerous missions that no one else can accomplish. But in HBP, as I said earlier, circumstances have changed. DD still needs Snape to watch over the students (primarily Harry and Draco), and he is placed directly in Voldemort's camp in his position as double agent, but it's not Snape's skills as a potion maker that he needs now. It's his knowledge of the Dark Arts and how to fight them. Just as it would have been inappropriate for Lockhart as DADA teacher to prepare the Mandrake Restorative Potion (even if he had the skill), it would be inappropriate for Snape as Potions master to cure Dumbledore and Katie Bell using DADA skills (or to remove the curse from the opal necklace itself, which I believe he must have done). That would be the DADA teacher's job (just as it *should* have been Slughorn's job to supply a bezoar when Ron was poisoned). DD needs Snape in a position where he is authorized to handle the emergencies that are inevitable now that Voldemort and his DEs now waging active war. Snape's healing skills are beyond Madam Pomfrey's. He alone could have saved Katie Bell from the cursed necklace or DD from the ring Horcrux or Draco from Harry's Sectumsempra curse. Whether he could have saved DD from the poisoned memories in the cave potion we'll never know, but DD clearly believed that he could. However Snape feels about taking the DADA post, it's clear to me that Dumbledore would much rather keep Snape with him, which he can only do if Snape is Potions Master. To give him the DADA position is to lose him, and the decision to do so in HBP constitutes a major sacrifice on DD's part, as well as a terrible danger to Snape. Wanting Slughorn's memory (which merely reveals the number of Horcruxes) is hardly sufficient reason in itself to expose them both to such risks, especially knowing that their long relationship will inevitably end. Only the dire situation his students will face in the coming war, in which they will need what only Snape can teach them, and his own need for Snape's services in relation to DADA rather than Potions, could convince him that it's time, at last, to give Snape the DADA post, despite the curse. It's a sacrifice. It's the lesser of two evils, just like Snape's decision on the tower. Carol, wishing that Wormtail had left Baby!mort floating in the boiling potion and released Harry to dispatch him then and there From Sherry at PebTech.net Thu Oct 20 21:38:21 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:38:21 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Unity vs. Division (was: Draco's life vs. Dumbledore's ) In-Reply-To: <010b01c5cd0d$d8eda8d0$6172400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141920 > Magpie: > More importantly, there's the Sorting Hat's song, held back until fifth > year, but I think very important to the series. However nice Hogwarts may > have seemed to Harry when he showed up, it's a school that is broken and > wounded, and it's suffering for it. The hat explains how it was founded, > how all the founders fought with each other, and how the fighting stopped > because one of them-Slytherin-left. This stopped the fighting, but at a > price. Amontillada: I agree--very important! Nearly Headless Nick underlines its significance when he tells Harry and friends that the Hat has given similar warnings before, and that his theme is always that all of Hogwarts needs to "Stand together." > I think DD considers all Hogwarts students as belonging on his side Amontillada: And as being in his care. That's why he chose to risk his life in HBP by freezing Harry and appealing to Draco, instead of using his magic to lash out at Draco. His first and strongest instinct is to protect his students. When some of them seem to be falling from his side, his reflex is to try to "pull them back," not to "push them overboard." You or someone else later in this thread mentioned Hermione inviting members of the other houses (not just Gryffindor) into DA in OotP. My memory also tells me that she worried about the unity vs. division of the Houses early in either OotP or HBP, but I don't have the specific reference right now. As Harry has grown up and gained a broader view of the world, we've also gotten a broader view of the school, with characters from Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw being important in the more recent books. I really expect (or hope) that unity among Hogwarts students, as well as among the peoples in the broader magical world, will be a significant factor in the final book. Amontillada From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Oct 20 21:53:05 2005 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:53:05 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435811C1.2070602@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141921 gav_fiji wrote: >>Christina >>I don't find it a stretch to believe that Snape really *has* been >>applying for the job all these years and has been denied it. > > > Goddlefrood: > > As I said earlier there is plenty to indicate that Snape did not > apply. Particularly the events of Harry's fifth year. Do you really > think that if Snape had applied Dumbledore would not, however > reluctantly, have given him the job, mostly because of his aversion > to Ministry interference? > Yes, I do think exactly that. Dumbledore has seen that the ministry is hell-bent on getting Umbridge into Hogwarts. If he'd tried to bolt the obvious door (by filling the DADA position), he could expect her to enter through the window, or even to make a hole in the wall. The person who'd send dementors after a child - do you think she is above trying to incapacitate one of the teachers? It was better to let her in without having a full-blown confrontation so early in the year. Irene From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 22:54:08 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:54:08 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141922 > Geoff: > I think we may disagree here because I believe, as a Christian, that > there are moral absolutes and the concept of the "greater good" can > fit within them. Taking your example of Draco, I'm not sure that he > would be considering what was in the right. Like Wormtail, he's > looking for the biggest bully. Well, if it comes to that I believe there is no such thing as killing for the Greater Good sake from the truly Christian point of view, is there? Christ said in no uncertain terms that, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven". Of course, there is and always has been a certain disparity between the Christians' Moral Absolutes and their everyday life but that's again the difference between the morality and necessity. As for Draco looking for the biggest bully, why should he? He is not in the least like Wormtail. a_svirn From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Oct 20 23:31:02 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:31:02 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: <88.31ad8e70.30885ffd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141923 Neri: > > The 5 hrs *difference* between the time Umbridge took Harry and > > Hermione to the forest and the time of the Order members breaking > > into the DoM ??" this time difference *is* canon. Julie: > Starting with the "missing 5 hours," it is there as > canon if you do the > math, houyhnhnm: The missing five hours is from the time TeamHarry took off on the thestrals to the time Harry was back in Dumbledore's office. Sunset to the faint line of green in the eastern sky--9:00pm to 2:00am (or 10:00-3:00 if the WW observes Summertime). There is nothing to tell when the Order members arrived at the MoM. From jenkuy at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 20 23:26:00 2005 From: jenkuy at sbcglobal.net (jenkuy24) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:26:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's role vis-a-vis Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141924 In my opinion Severus Snape is none of the above, DDM, OFH, ESE, nor suicidal Snape. Severus Snape is straddling those two opposing worlds ? good and evil. To this point he has not had to make the ultimate decision about where his allegiance lies. He has a hand in each side- not for his own personal gain, but because this is the life that has presented itself. He is doing what he can to survive, and he has not had to make the ultimate decision yet about who he is. I do believe there was genuine remorse from him about his days as a death eater. And I believe he has served Dumbledore well. However, with the curse from the DADA job "bringing out his worst", the intensifying hatred between Harry and Snape, and his agreeing to the UV, he can be seen as just as fully committed to the dark side. Someone else has pointed out that his names, Severus and Snape represent his good and evil sides respectively, based upon who uses which name. Dumbledore continually refers to him as Severus/Professor Snape, as do several others, which seems to bring out the good/humanitarian instincts in him. Dumbledore is continually reminding Harry to refer to him as Professor Snape. On the other hand, other people, including Harry and Sirius, continually refer to him simply as Snape. They only see the side of him bent towards evil and from him they receive bad treatment. However, we all know that Severus Snape has both good and bad elements within him, just like all of us. I don't believe it will be Snape who will make the final decision about which way Snape will go- it will be Harry! Can Harry overcome his deep hatred and see that even Snape has good in him? Harry will have to finally believe in Professor Snape to do the right thing. One of Dumbledore's chief traits is the ability to trust that people will rise to the occasion. If they do have any good in them (everyone except Voldemort, and now even he has Harry's love blood flowing in his veins), Dumbledore expects them to do the right thing. He has faith- and if Harry can find faith in Professor Snape to choose good, Prof. Snape will. This will be one of Harry's final acts of personal development and growth, in fact perhaps his last- to recognize the element of good in everyone. (I believe this will somehow happen with Voldemort/Tom Riddle as well). Of course, IMO, the only possible outcome is for Harry to fully develop into the hero we are hoping for, and for Snape to do the right thing. Thanks for listening. Jenny From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 22:47:08 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:47:08 -0000 Subject: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141925 > > Goddlefrood earlier: > > I thought the only useful thing Snape taught them was non-verbal > > spells, and he didn't really teach that did he? He expected people to do it. > Christina responded > Not exactly. What directions can you give for casting non-verbal > spells other than "cast a spell without speaking"? Goddlfrood now says: By your logic Snape needn't have bothered trying to teach Occlumency at all. He should have just said close your mind and practice and left it at that. Why then have repeated lessons? There was so much more he could have told Harry and didn't, and this probably goes more to Snape's dislike of Harry than anything else. As an example if you are trying to teach Occlumency then it would be useful to say things like "Now try to compartmentalise your thoughts so that any that give away a potential lie can not be seen." It seems that Bellatrix taught Draco quite well and it would be interesting to find out how she did so. Snape is, although competent, a rather lax teacher as he either writes or says instructions and expects his students to be able to grasp the subject with little or no further exposition. In the case of non verbal spells Snape could most certainly have done more, perhaps something like Wilike Twycross in Apparition who explained the three Ds. The theory of non verbal spells and how to concentrate the mind would surely have been useful. Or perhaps I have been out of formal education for too long myself and have a predisposition against teaching. > Christina: > I can see how there might be doubt, but I believe it. Goddlefrood: Then we agree to disagree as should be in a healthy discussion. I believe, as I make clear in my original article, that Snape did not want the DADA job, most particularly in Harry's fifth year. Or perhaps as I also mentioned earlier it was simply a convoluted plot device. > Christina: > I agree on Lupin, although I've heard people criticize him, saying he did not teach the students advanced enough material. Goddlefrood: We only really see the first half of the year of Lupin's teaching, but he certainly did teach them about Vampires in the second half, which would probably be considered fairly advanced. All of what Lupin taught the students has certainly come in handy for some of them later. As to the balance of your comments, Christina, I would say that the interpretation I chose I stick by and am still convinced that Snape wanting the DADA job has been the largest red herring of all so far. If we accept that Snape was truly repentent and wanted to assist the "good" side as has been argued, although for reasons I have stated in previous posts I do not believe to be the case, then it would make no sense for him to want the DADA job especially in view of his probable knowledge regarding the curse. Oh and Moody taught the students the value of constant vigilence as well as giving them guidance on the Unforgiveables. Goddelfrood signing off for the Fiji weekend and do look out for a revision of my Bagman BBDE viewpoint that I hope to post early next week. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Oct 21 00:18:25 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:18:25 -0000 Subject: Wormtail at Spinner's End (WAS Re: New(?) questions about the Unbreakable Vow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141926 Nathaniel: > However, your post seems to indicate that you believe that Voldemort > placed Peter there so as to keep an eye on Snape. houyhnhnm: I do. And the possibility has been mentioned before, though I was not the first to bring it up, and it has not been thoroughly analyzed. The problem is that there is so little definite information to work with. All we have are Snape's statements in "Spinner's End". Whether or not we believe him depends on assumptions already made about his character. I'm just going on *interpretation* ;-) Voldemort really has no reason to distrust PP--despise, yes--but not distrust. He's the perfect cringing, sychophantic minion. On the other hand, he has plenty of reason to distrust Snape. Even if Snape is a loyal DE, it seems to me that Voldemort would likely distrust him, as tyrants do distrust those who rival (or even surpass) their own abilities. It just seems logical to me that LV would set a spy on Snape regardless of whether Snape is actually ESE, OFH, or DDM. The point I was trying to make upthread, however, is that it might *look* suspicious to the two sisters, both of whom Snape wants to impress with his position as the Dark Lord's favorite. It is a piece of discrepant information, at odds with his role as the DL's most trusted advisor, to have Wormtail listening in on his conversations. So he makes a point of emphasizing PP's servile status, whether or not it truthfully reflects the nature of their relationship. Not too hard to do for Snape, who has a talent for dominating people, with Pettigrew, who is a born punk. From kjones at telus.net Fri Oct 21 01:34:32 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:34:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Destroying soul bits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435845A8.80007@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141927 cubfanbudwoman wrote: > SSSusan: > For clarification's sake, are you suggesting that it might be worse to > kill the soul bits than to kill Voldy himself? Or are you wondering > why it is that people seem to be concerned that Harry might end up a > killer (by doing in Voldy in the end), but they don't seem concerned > about his setting off to destroy soul bits? > Assuming it's the latter question, I'll toss this out... and it may > very well seem like a stupid answer, but.... I guess in my mind, when > a person creates a horcrux, he has *already* sacrificed that part of > his own soul. He doesn't CARE! So, yes, I agree with you that it's > apparently something *viable,* but if it's already been sacrificed and > cast off, in a sense, by its owner, should Harry or DD be concerned > about destroying those bits? > Siriusly Snapey Susan KJ writes: No, I don't think it's a stupid answer, and yes, I am curious about why a lot of the list will swear that Dumbledore would not ask anyone to rip his soul, but there is no hesitation to destroy a soul. It is as if it slips by us in the story. "Oh good, only four more soul bits to go" and Voldie's toast. There is also some confusion about how the horcruxes work. If Volemort's body is killed, does that kill his "at home" soul piece? Does one of the horcruxes support the life of the "at home" piece, or does it replace the loss of the "at home piece"? Does one horcrux get used up if Voldemort is killed? The diary horcrux was able to take on a life of its own because it had access to people. How would the horcruxes work that can not have any access to people because of the dense spells protecting them? It's all very perplexing. Why would it be less distressing to kill a soul than to kill a person? From a religious point of view, would not the soul be considered more impotant than the living person? The Dementors are so disturbing to the WW because they suck out the soul. Also, I wonder about the status of Inferi. Are they cadavers with no soul, or is their soul trapped in a dead mobile body? Then there are the Hogwarts ghosts, which would appear to be souls with no corporeal body. Then there are the Hogwarts paintings that seem like they are alive, sound like they are alive, and talk quite sensibly to Dumbledore, but we are told that they have no souls. Then there is Voldemort with perhaps four soul pieces in storage for emergencies. I don't think that he cast them off, I think that he hid them or gave them to trusted people to look after. I am hoping that he gives them all to Snape. Apparently, I have no personal investment in the saving of Volemort's soul. ;) I am hoping for some explanation for all of this. Maybe JKR in building her plot line thought it would be amusing to make the villain harder to kill by making it necessary to kill six of him first, and forgot about all this other soul-oriented stuff. Any comments are welcome. KJ From kjones at telus.net Fri Oct 21 01:52:25 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:52:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and DADA from DD's perspective (Was: The DADA job - Not Snape's cup of tea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435849D9.2050208@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141928 justcarol67 wrote: > > In HBP, more is at stake than Dumbledore's need for Slughorn's memory, > which is only one factor among many in his decision to give Snape the > DADA post. Circumstances have changed. The war is on. Another Potions > master, whom DD happens to want at Hogwarts for other reasons, is > available to replace Snape if DD moves him to the DADA position. > Conveniently, this teacher is also a Slytherin, who can take Snape's > place as HoH when he inevitably loses his position at the end of the > year as the result of the DADA curse. DD has no need for two Potions > masters, but, as ever, he has a DADA vacancy, and, as in OoP, no one > has (apparently) applied for the cursed DADA position--unless Snape > himself has done so, and I believe he has. It's Snape or no one > (unless the MoM supplies another candidate, not a desirable option). > In these dangerous times, Dumbledore can't afford *not* to use Snape's > skills (discussed later in this post), even though he knows that Snape > won't be back the following year. Perhaps he suspects that he himself > won't be back. But curse or no curse, he can't put off hiring Snape > to teach DADA any longer. He has no other choice. Whether he likes it > or not, it's time. KJ writes While I agree with the majorit of the posts on this subject, I just want to add that I think it is all simpler than that. Why, if Voldemort jinxed the DADA job, would he still leave it in effect after his rebirth. If he ordered Snape to apply for that job, it would explain why Snape did apply for it each year. He was unable to explain to Voldemort that Dumbledore would not give him the job because it was jinxed. Dumbledore would expect Snape to apply every year as per his instructions, but it would not be given to him for all of the reasons expressed above. Once Dumbledore was injured and weakening, he had to set everything in place to insert Snape as close to Voldemort as possible. He pulled in Slughorn, gave Snape DADA, knowing that it was the last year for both of them. I think Snape was surprised by the UV but could also see a way out of it by allowing it to kill him. Dumbledore was quite willing to make use of it to increase Voldemort's trust in Snape. I can see Voldemort expecting Snape to perform the deed if Draco did not, which means that it was also the last year that he intended to leave Snape at Hogwarts. KJ From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 16:32:02 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051020163202.66154.qmail@web34911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141929 AyanEva wrote: "I figured I'd run with this card thing and give my deck a go. Sorry if I repeat anything that's been mentioned before! And now for a little extra on Trelawney's playing cards: CH3ed: Wow, AyanEva. Good research! Well, I would guess that if it was the knight that came out, then the dark young man would be Snape. But if it was the knave, then the dark young man would be Draco Malfoy. The circumstances in HBP seems to fit that (Draco is quite dark if you ignore his tow head and pale complexion, he was an aspiring dark wizard who was studying the dark arts and plotting a dark deed). From rh64643 at appstate.edu Fri Oct 21 02:18:34 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:18:34 -0000 Subject: J.K.Rowling on Wandless Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141930 I saw this interview and thought it clarified a lot about wandless magic. This is from a BBC on-line interview of Rowling from March 12, 2001. Do you need a Wand to do Magic? You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt Marge), but to do really good spells, yes, you need a wand. Wandless magic still seems a little inconsistent to me, but this is the official answer I guess. truthbeauty 1 From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Oct 21 02:32:02 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:32:02 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141931 Sydney: [...] > And THAT, my dears, is what JKR meant by saying that > Dumbledore didn't give Snape the DADA job because he > feared it would bring out the worst in Snape. As for > why Snape was suicidal-- because he caused the endangerment > and death of the woman he loved of course. But that's > another theory... houyhnhnm: My first reaction was that Snape's reapplying for the DADA every year was just Hogwarts urban folklore along the lines of Flitwick the duelling champion. Then I remembered that Snape had confirmed it to Umbridge. It does take some explaining. Snape would not need to be told that the DADA position was cursed. Suicidal!Snape just doesn't ring true to me, though. Through six books the thought has never occurred to me that "this man wants to die". Unless HP really is a Christian allegory with Snape as Judas (didn't Trelawney turn up a hanged man at some point?) and DD as Jesus. But hasn't Rowling said that he isn't? It could be that Snape was lying to Umbridge. In other words, "Snape is after the DADA" could be a fiction that both Snape and DD have encouraged, because it serves some purpose. His cover with LV perhaps, which leads to the conundrum of why Voldemort would send his spy to apply for a position he knew was cursed because he cursed it himself. Or it could be that Snape did indeed want the DADA position and did apply for it every year, not because he wanted to die, but because he thought he could beat it. I am a firm subscriber to Carol's theory about the working of the DADA curse through the character flaw of its victim. I think the curse definitely worked itself out through Snape's arrogance. Could it also draw its prospective victims by acting on the same flaw? He's watched other people take on the job and fail year after year. He's analyzed their mistakes. He could do better. In fact, it could be a kind of ultimate challenge for someone whose interest in dark magic is primarily intellectual--to break the curse on the DADA, to be teaching Defense Against Dark Arts and practicing it at the same time. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 03:05:37 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:05:37 -0000 Subject: Destroying soul bits In-Reply-To: <435845A8.80007@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141932 > KJ writes: > > No, I don't think it's a stupid answer, and yes, I am curious about > why a lot of the list will swear that Dumbledore would not ask > anyone to rip his soul, but there is no hesitation to destroy a > soul. zgirnius: In destroying a Horcrux and the soul bit inside, you're not really destroying Voldemort's soul, just one piece of it. The 'at home' soul continues to exist, if in a very damaged form. (And the damage is certainly not the responsibility of someone destroying a Horcrux.) > KJ: > There is also some confusion about how the horcruxes > work. If Volemort's body is killed, does that kill his "at home" > soul piece? Does one of the horcruxes support the life of the "at > home" piece, or does it replace the loss of the "at home piece"? > Does one horcrux get used up if Voldemort is killed? zgirnius: First, killing Voldemort (or any other person) I would presume does not kill the soul. While this has not been explicitly stated in the books, the soul in Christianity (most likely the source of JKR's ideas about the soul) is the thing that lives on after someone dies. It just goes somewhere else (Heaven/Hell/Purgatory/etc...) My understanding of how Horcruxes work is that they prevent the soul of someone who is killed from doing whatever it is that the soul would normally do at this point, by anchoring it in this world. All the Horcruxes simultaneously perform this function. As long as even one remains, the soul will not pass on to wherever. I do not believe V needs to 'use up' a Horcrux to restore himself. When DD was having the Horcrux counting discussion, he assumed there had been 6 made altogether, and 2 destroyed, the diary and the ring. This left 4 to destroy. If a Horcrux needed to be used to restore V to life, that should have meant only three remain. No, I think that the original 'at home' soul of Voldemort lives on in his new body. > KJ: > The Dementors are so disturbing to the WW because they > suck out the soul. zgirnius: I think the Dementors are different from someone destroying a Horcrux. They suck out and permanently destroy the 'at home' soul. (Which is the whole thing for all but a tiny number of Dark wizards in history...) They leave the body alive, but when the body later dies, nothing is left of that person at all. > KJ: > Also, I wonder about the status of Inferi. Are they > cadavers with no soul, or is their soul trapped in a dead mobile > body? zgirnius: Ooooh gruesome thought. No, from what I gather a Dark wizard first kills someone, and then makes them an Inferius. So I think the soul gets away at the moment of death. (I hope!) > KJ: > Then there are the Hogwarts ghosts, which would appear to be souls > with no corporeal body. zgirnius: To paraphrase (quote? I don't have my book handy) Professor Snape, DADA Master at Hogwarts: 'A ghost is an imprint of a departed soul'. What does that mean? A ghost is not the soul itself, apparently. We know from Nick that he's a ghost because he was afraid of death. So maybe when a wizard dies, their consciousness/memories/self usually go with their soul to wherever. But in cases like Nick's, instead, the soul 'departs' and the rest stays, attached to an 'imprint'. > KJ: > Then there are the Hogwarts paintings that seem like > they are alive, sound like they are alive, and talk quite sensibly to > Dumbledore, but we are told that they have no souls. zgirnius: Yes, and they all seem to be portraits of dead people. Presumably their souls have gone on to wherever. The magic of portrait making must somehow capture at least a portion of the personality and memories of the subject. KJ: > I don't think that he cast them off, I think that he hid them or > gave them to trusted people to look after. I am hoping that he > gives them all to Snape. Apparently, I have no personal investment > in the saving of > Volemort's soul. ;) > I am hoping for some explanation for all of this. Maybe JKR in > building her plot line thought it would be amusing to make the villain > harder to kill by making it necessary to kill six of him first, and > forgot about all this other soul-oriented stuff. Any comments are welcome. zgirnius: I believe she thought Horcruxes and ghosts through somewhat carefully. Some of this soul stuff will play a role in Book 7. She has said in interviews that she was sorry to do it, but she had to kill off Sirius. Just doing it to isolate Harry further is not sufficient reason in my opinion. I think the fact that he is dead, and not a ghost, will play some role in the resolution of Book 7. From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 03:10:47 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:10:47 -0000 Subject: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA-- LONG!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141933 > > houyhnhnm: > > My first reaction was that Snape's reapplying for the DADA every year > was just Hogwarts urban folklore along the lines of Flitwick the > duelling champion. I totally thought that too- so I was very surprised by JKR's chat before OoP came out, where she had the "D-dore fears it will be bring out the worst in Snape" quote, and then of course confirmed it in the book itself with Umbrige. >Suicidal!Snape just doesn't ring true > to me, though. Through six books the thought has never occurred to me > that "this man wants to die". I've always seen him as guilt-ridden and depressed, myself-- though the suicidal thing I confess is something I came up with more for the neatness of the theory than directly from Snape's personality. > It could be that Snape was lying to Umbridge. In other words, "Snape > is after the DADA" could be a fiction that both Snape and DD have > encouraged, because it serves some purpose. His cover with LV > perhaps, which leads to the conundrum of why Voldemort would send his > spy to apply for a position he knew was cursed because he cursed it > himself. My problem with that is that is, first, if it's a cover story then it's a mighty lame one, as Bellatrix says: "Just because he wouldn't let you teach your favorite subject..". The other thing is that JKR just harps on it so darn much. I think it's going to be one of her forehead-slappers. > Or it could be that Snape did indeed want the DADA position and did > apply for it every year, not because he wanted to die, but because >he...He's watched other people take on the job and fail year after >year. > He's analyzed their mistakes. He could do better. In fact, it could > be a kind of ultimate challenge for someone whose interest in dark > magic is primarily intellectual--to break the curse on the DADA, to be > teaching Defense Against Dark Arts and practicing it at the same time. I like this and it's very Snapey... but it's not as bangy. Plus it only explains the one thing, and I'm partial to Grand Unified Theories! Sydney From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Oct 21 03:11:26 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:11:26 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141934 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > > Ceridwen now: > > > Can anyone point me to the first reading, where Trelawney is turning > > > over the hand of spades? The reason I want to > > > know is, does anyone else think the 'Knave of Spades' might refer to > > > Snape? He has dark hair and eyes, is young compared to Dumbledore, > > > is possibly troubled, and he dislikes Trelawney. What else was in > > > that reading? > > Was I the only one who took this scene at face value? I thought it was JKR being funny. After "no that can't be right," Trelawney runs smack into the troubled young man who dislikes her (Harry). Allie From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 04:07:17 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:07:17 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141935 > Was I the only one who took this scene at face value? I thought it was > JKR being funny. I would have thought so too, except she suddenly springs "The Lightning-Struck Tower" on us. I'd never noticed any Tarot imagery in HP before (I'm such a dork "The Hanged Man" never registered!). But if she IS using Tarot, then the cards she draws do make a lot of sense for either Dumbledore or Snape, if you use the traditional meanings: Two of Swords, a decision/stalemate causing anxiety; Five of Swords, a strategem, salvaging what you can get; Ten of Swords: the worst outcome, defeat. Has anyone gone through the whole series Tarot-Wise? Sydney From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 04:16:37 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:16:37 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141936 > houyhnhnm: > > The missing five hours is from the time TeamHarry took off on the > thestrals to the time Harry was back in Dumbledore's office. Sunset > to the faint line of green in the eastern sky--9:00pm to 2:00am (or > 10:00-3:00 if the WW observes Summertime). There is nothing to tell > when the Order members arrived at the MoM. > Neri: I start counting from Umbridge taking Harry and Hermione to the forest, since this was the first time, according to Dumbledore, that Snape contacted 12GP to find out if Sirius was there (actually a bit before that, when he walked out of Umbridge's office). We don't know exactly when that was, but it was during dinnertime (Harry can hear students talking and "the clatter of cutlery on plates" in the great hall, see the beginning of chapter 33) and we also know it was well before sunset (the sun was "falling towards the tops of the trees", also beginning of chapter 33). It seems 7:00 to 8:00pm (not using DST) would be reasonable time estimations. I end the counting with the Order members arriving at the MoM. Again we don't know exactly when that happened, but if you read the description in the book it seems impossible that the whole DEs vs Order battle and the DD vs LV battle together took more than an hour, perhaps an hour and a half at a stretch. If Harry saw the first light of dawn at 2:00am then the Order arrived at the DoM around 1:00am or 12:30am the earliest (again not using DST). Thus reasonable estimation for the time it took the Order to arrive at the DoM would be 4.5 to 6 hours. I always said 5 hrs was merely one possible estimation, but it was certainly several hours, and at least half of that after dark. Neri From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Oct 21 04:42:00 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:42:00 -0000 Subject: Like it or not. WAS Re: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141937 Pippin: > > Supposing that JKR did wish to indicate that the AK was possibly > fake and that conspiracy > or legilimency between Snape and Dumbledore, unknown to Harry, was > a possibility. What > more should she have done to suggest this without giving the game > away? > Lupinlore: She's presented a situation that lots of people (mainly DDM!Snape supporters, I suppose) find impossible to believe, Valky: On the contrary Lupinlore, I am a DDM!Snaper and I found it perfectly, completely, believable that Snape killed Dumbledore. I still do find it generally believable and would not feel utterly cheated if JKR squashed all the theories (built on incongruent details and visible descrepancies) in book seven. It's still able to ring true with minor adjustments to ones adherance to pedancy about canon examples of AK. However, JKR has allowed for pedancy and even supported it with numerous examples through the series. Definitive accounts and unvarying consistency on some specific matters give the pedants a basis for questioning it all. JKR has always written this way. Granted this will be probably the first book that leaves us with middle of the book clues at the end of the book, but JKR gives us a post release interview comment stating exactly this, so why not assume that we *can* apply mid-book logic to the end of HBP. As Sydney said, Ginny in COS anyone? or PS/SS Broomstick curse?, as others have said. Lupinlore: [Snape fan] view [Snape killing DD] as an emotional and thematic betrayal, and/or find aesthetically repugnant. However, the only way out of said situation is to create escape hatches in the plot that lots of other people (mainly OFH! Snape and ESE!Snape supporters) find impossible to believe, view as an emotional and thematic betrayal, and/or find aesthetically repugnant. Valky: But none of us is telling the whole story here. There are some saying why but not how, others saying how but not why, no guarantee that the twain should meet in the middle in book seven, and *Still* JKR's stamp left to put on the direction she chooses to go, that stamp, is the fact of the matter, IMO, because it's that stamp that keeps us, all of us, baying for more. We pick bones, and join skeletal structures. No more than a jurassic archaelogist can recreate living breathing dinosaur can we be able to say what will be written next, we aren't writing the story or giving the dinosaur life. We are just joining bones here. If the dinosaur has an inverted arm joint or an anteverted one, doesn't matter, how do we know its aesthetically repugnant before we see the animal it hangs off? Lupinlore: In one blow she severely limited her options and practically guaranteed that there will be widespread disappointment with the last book no matter which way she moves. whether she cares or not does not alter the fact of the matter. Valky: The fact IMO is that we generally do find something in other peoples theories that we assume will dissappoint us. But we generally aren't dissappointed by the books themselves whether they adhere to theories we disliked or not. I distinctly recall a lot of vehement naysaying regarding Alla's pre HBP theory that Snape would do something awful before he is 'redeemed' or otherwise completed his character arc, a *lot* of saying it will flatten his character like a line of bulldozers. But those very people are the very same people who are loving discussing every facet of book six. There is *not* widespread disappointment. But Alla *was* right, JKR made a story out of it that was loved and accepted by her fans. IOW, Lupinlore, don't you think you might be jumping the gun a little here? Valky From ayaneva at aol.com Fri Oct 21 06:29:06 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:29:06 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141938 I apologize ahead of time for any accidental abbreviations or mispellings. Allie said in post 141934: > Was I the only one who took this scene at face value? I thought > it was JKR being funny. Me answering: I was so sure of that at first. I didn't think anything of the cards that she was drawing. Then the other night, I was searching chapters for things to add to future chapter discussions and those 4 cards just struck me as being significant. But the "doesn't like the questioner" card just didn't seem to apply to Harry if Harry himself was the questioner; that card at least has to be referring to someone other than Harry. Unless Harry's got a weird self-loathing thing going on. But I would expect that in OOTP, not HBP and the self-loathing theme is contradicted anyway by Harry's somewhat headstrong character, particularly evident, IMO in HBP. I see no hint of Harry disliking himself to any sort of detriment in HBP. Sydney responded to (Allie's) post 141934 in post 141935: > I'd never noticed any Tarot imagery in > HP before (I'm such a dork "The Hanged Man" never registered!). > Has anyone gone through the whole series Tarot-Wise? Me again: Wait, where was The Hanged Man??? Oh, now you're tempting me into doing just that; going through all 6 books with a tarot deck. Now back to the Spades discussion... Ceridwen wrote in post 141893: > There is a how-to for regular playing cards at > http://www3.sympatico.ca/terrir/divination_index.html And, there is > a four-card reading, though it only uses 32 cards, sevens and above, > which doesn't help for Trelawney's reading. However, since I was > curious, I snagged the meanings for the four cards we hear her > discussing: > > 2 Spades: Torn between two choices, stalemate > 7 Spades: Stealth in dealings.Betrayal by someone you trust. Minor > theft. (Romany: Seven of Spades - your tears ) > 10 Spades: Weakened health, chronic illness (real and imagined) > Knave Spades: Immature, cold, bossy, delinquent or gang leader > > Spades are for: > "Wisdom of old age, obstacles in life, warnings Winter Air and Earth > Black hair and eyes, introverted, cold, unemotional approach to life > Swords" > Wisdom sounds like Dumbledore, but the physical description sounds > like Snape. Harry would be hearts, as he has dark hair and blue, > green or hazel eyes. > Me now: That's really interesting because while the cards in the reading sound like both Draco (as CH3ed said in post 141929) and Snape, the description for Spades is definitely not Draco. The suit of Spades, IMO, definitely implies Snape. Since Draco matches the specific cards, but not the suit as a whole, I'm still going to go with Snape as the subject of the cards. Snape's 2 for 2 with this one. However, I wanted to see if I could "prove" this, in a manner of speaking, so I looked up the qualities of Spades that you listed by referencing Snape's astrological sign. I found, at http://fortunesnow.com/library/zodiac.asp: "CAPRICORN ? the Goat (December 22 ? January 19) Tenth sign of the zodiac; represents achievement, realism, organization. Needs to learn to understand the feelings and needs of others. Planet: Saturn Element: Earth Season: early winter Quality: cardinal Energy: Yin Tarot Card: The Devil Gemstone: amethyst, garnet Colour: black, gray This list seems to mostly agree with other lists that I checked for verification. I'm not sure what "warnings winter air and earth" means exactly (from your post), but if it's part of the description, the Earth and Winter descriptions for Snape's sign (Capricorn) above match Spades. You can explain away Wisdom as being associated with Dumbledore if you think about how someone says, "S/he acts older than her/his age" or s/he is old for his/her age." I do think that would apply to Snape, tantrums aside, because of everything that he's been through. He's far wiser/craftier than your average 36 year old; if he wasn't he wouldn't still be alive. The tantrum issue has been explained in various manners, so in my mind that becomes a non-issue. His particular tarot card, according to the list above, in my book says this (about The Devil): "On a divinatory level, the card of Pan, the Devil, implies the necessity of a confrontation with all that is shadowy, shameful and base in the personality. The Fool must free himself by gaining knowledge and honest, humble acceptance of Pan, for then he can release the creative power which is held in chains by his own panic and self-disgust. Thus he comes to the heart of the labyrinth and faces his own darnkess in the essential darkness of his body, in order to become what he always was- merely natural(65)." I love that last line! Oh, the possibilities! Both Capricorn and Yin are feminine: "yin is the passive, negative force, and yang the active, positive force" (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=mh90iu0xub84 ?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Yin+and+yang&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid= lc01b&linktext=yin%20and%20yang) Sorry for the super long link. *shrugs* The quality description for Capricorn is the same as yin, with the addition of introversion. I'm not sure about the passive bit, but I'm going to go out on a completely unsubstantiated and "bit of a stretch" limb here and say that I think Snape would normally be fairly passive, if he were in a different situation. Look at the memory from the pensieve in OOTP. If we assume that the boy crying in the corner was Snape, that's passive. Ok, yeah, so he *was* a kid, but...still. If you add in the "worst memory" scene with James/Sirius/Remus/Lilly, Snape, I'd argue that, at that time, was relatively passive until provoked. He just wandered over to a tree and was minding his own business. So, that's closer to his natural character: to leave people alone and be left alone. Something wonky happened along the way... or a lot of "somethings" wonky. BUT, I'm going to contradict myself completely now. There's the problem of Saturn, a masculine energy apparently. http://www.vedic-astrology-prediction.com/saturn.html I'm not sure how to reconcile that with yin, but oh well. Saturn is more provable with canon and matches Snape's personality quite well, so I'll champion that and leave Yin to the side for now, which is proved only by massive conjecture. Although, I'd like the Yin bit to be true, I can't say for certain that it is. As a side note: The Cardinal quality is one of four in this category. It signifies "dynamic change, movement and great vitality." http://www.astrology.com.au/12signs/index.asp I'll save you an analysis of all of the crap that I found on astrological stones (the amethyst and the garnet). Google turns up a bunch of stuff. And now for something completely different... colebiancardi writes in post 141894: >As I already know the events that will come, I am now thinking that >the the dark young man who dislikes the questioner is actually >forshadowing the events that will happen in this chapter. In other >words, when Dumbledore meets Tom Riddle for the first time - >conflict, violence,troubled, dark, young, and dislikes answering DD's >questions. >any thoughts on that? Me responding: That's a good one! Hadn't thought of that. It could work, but I do have a problem have with the cards referring to the pensieve memory with Riddle; the memory doesn't really seem all that worthy of a prediction. The lightning struck tower is definitely a worthy prediction because of the events that it signified. But it almost seems like it would be a waste of page space to put in vague predictions about Harry finding out something that happened in the past that affects the present, but isn't going to occur in the near future and drastically influence future outcomes. If it was a prediction about something from the present that was going to affect the future, then I could go with that. But not a prediction made in the present about the past. Otherwise, we could've gotten the Gaunts in a prophetic card reading way back in chapter 1 or a Trelawney-inspired hint about Dumbledore's injury in Chapter 5 or something. Both the Gaunts and Dumbledore's injury are integral to the plot like the meeting with Riddle, but they definitely didn't get a card reading. Ok, hope I responded to everyone! I haven't even begun to get caught up on all of the posts that I've missed while attempting to do some school work. If you're interested, I've gotten no school work done whatsoever. Lucky there aren't many gradable assignments... AyanEva From silmariel at telefonica.net Fri Oct 21 08:41:19 2005 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:41:19 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on Tonks - LONG and rambling (was:Re: What's In A Patronus?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200510211041.19337.silmariel@telefonica.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141939 Thanks for being so patient, all of you who were waiting for this reply. truthbeauty1 in 141574 Tonks is Tonks: > I do not see Tonks' strange behavior in H.B.P as needing any other > excuse besides being young and in love with someone who won't return > that love. Ok. I don't buy that excuse for all the changes, but is elaborated below and in the original post. truthbeauty1: > She is much more passive, and also normally in large open spaces where it > would be hard to be clumsy, I.M.O. Really? And I thought that she should be clumsier, being depressed, love striken and passive - yes, I've seen RL cases of a depressed person going /more/ clumsy. I think it's a matter of opinion. truthbeauty1: > The patronus situation is also used as proof for some that Tonks == Mrs. > Malfoy. It's just another of the details. truthbeauty1: > I see this situation as proof that this idea is wrong. First of > all, Tonks finds Harry and helps him into the castle. Why exactly would > Narcissa help the boy who basically landed her husband in prison and has > been the bane of her son's existence for 5 years? Well, the point of the theory is that Narcissa isn't a psycophat monster as her sister, nor a hard line mugglephile as her other sister. I did see her concerned over Mr. Black just to the point of covering social appearances but no more, in ch 2. The bane? His son needs growing if he thinks so. But in this book imo the bane of Draco is Voldemort, is a very deadly, real and short term menace. Blowing up your cover and possible help acting ooc for Tonks since day one isn't exactly an expected behavior, and Snape says in ch 2 that Harry is for LV, period. Even an ESE!Cissy doesn't have motives to act differently here. truthbeauty1: > Then there is Snape' very cold welcome. And very logical, considering what they were up to the last time we know he saw her (with her being Cissy). Easy to be resented of that. truthbeauty1: > Snape sees the Patronus and recognizes it for what it > is, a werewolf Snape hates Lupin, thus Snape now hates Tonks. Considering Tonks as herself here, the thing is, I don't think he hates Lupin. I thought he was giving her good advice and telling her not to be so evident. Only a reading, of course, the reading for Cissy!Tonks is in the original post. truthbeauty1: > Also, I don't believe that someone could fake their Patronus. If Narcissa > has one, I don't think it would be a werewolf. I can't see how that would > be comforting to anyone who wasn't in love with one. > I didn't want to go and reread, so I searched the Lexicon -thanks people-: We don't know if Tonks patronus is a wolf, only that it is an "immense four-legged creature" - ch 8. It's Harry who believes that. truthbeauty1: > Tonks' appearance in Hogwarts isn't stange to me either. We know that she > is on patrol in and around the Castle, so why couldn't she be there quickly > if she thought the man she loved was in great danger? > I agree that isn't extrange, what is fun is Malfoy so conveniently near and the way the scene is presented. In case of deciding to try and talk to Harry, why not say directly 'Came to see DD but nice to see you Harry' and talk a little instead of acting like someone that is on the run. She doesn't have to ask for letters from the order (wich is an odd thing), if she really knows the minimun about Harry&Lupin, he is the only friend of his parents he can talk with, so it's as natural to ask Harry about Lupin, as for example asking him about the Weasleys, more family to him than his own. truthbeauty1: > I would love to know if anyone has any canon proof to either support or > argue the points mentioned > above. > Going upthread 3 times or post number 140624 and you'll find every canon reference we have found, but I doubt /proof/ can be found, it's canon support. Try to find /proof/, not only support or intuitions, but real, convincing proof, of the existence of Horcruxes before HBP. Now with the posts in this thread: Jessica: >While I'm not entirely convinced of Narcissa!Tonks, I love the theory that >someone else could be impersonating Tonks for the entirety of HBP. Tonks >seems way too different in this book than in OotP, so something must be out >of whack." All speculation on Imposter!Tonks is welcomed. Fleur? maybe Bill has been around werewolves too much for his own sake and that's why Greywolf gives him personal treatment. Jessica: >*sonorous voice* Draco, search your feelings. You know it to be true. > ... Since my only requirement for enjoying Book 7 is that no >character be (shockingly!) revealed to be the parent of another character, >I'm going to propose another alternative." lol - let the Phoenix's song guide you - he isn't a real father, only a surrogate one - say Narcissa with the years has had enough time to change her teen views about Lucius and Snape, and Draco - Draco matches the blacks' pattern for names and the Roman name requirement of Lucius - if at the same time coincides with a family friend patronus, is almost in the top names list by default - it's more a tale of making choices and slow changes than a tale of unexpected parentship. There's not an only aproach to this question. Say an ESE!Narcissa and an ESE!Snape form a natural alliance, and if we are to buy he's been able to foolish everyone then he could have made space for Cissy. Ewe2 plays more with on her own Cissy, as you, and I favor the betraying DE side, but that is choosing flavors. Jessica: >Narcissa!Tonks is on her own. This leaves a number of questions unanswered - >mainly, how did Narcissa kidnap Tonks, and how does she maintain the >transformation? Kreature helped to know what was going on between Lupin and her, she used a love potion to set a lure - then Imperio - hey, if love sickness justifies losing magic, the patronus and clumsiness, I don't know why it should be difficult to buy that it also lowers your I.Q. and awareness skills. Imperio someone that she's going to be in contact with and you have an excuse to visit - Fleur for example if works in Gringotts. A more realistic scenario should be needed, but you get the point. Both Moody and Barty Jr were held for long periods, it isn't unheard of. Slughorn clearly shows polijuice can be made in small-business quantities. Narcissa has motives of her own to be emotionally upheaveled, so she wouldn't have to fake that. Jessica: > Which leads me to my next thought: Metamorphmagi are rare, >and you have to be born one. Does it run in families? Could Narcissa be a >metamorphmagus? (I know, I know, what are the odds? But hey, it's only a >theory.) Maybe she doesn't need the Polyjuice at all. Or she doesn't need a lot of make up, being related. The same odds as having three animagi in the same house and year, or that a day in the calendar appears out of nowhere without even a comentary? At least we know that the Blacks -in general- are talented in magic, and there seems to be directly inherited abilities rare in the population, as parsel. If Cissy doesn't need to polijuice is raised the question on Tonks' chances of survival, but she may have not killed her both on the 'I'm not really a killer' approach or as Plan B (beg for mercy if you are caught) is not probable to succeed if you left corpses all around. Jessica: >I've been wondering how Patronuses carry their authorship if you can change >their shape. How would Tonks expect to know that *she* was sending a >message to Hagrid, if her Patronus changed? Are members of the Order in the >habit of answering strange Patronuses, just in case someone's changed their >signal, in the same way that I sometimes read the contents of my spam email >file? Don't ask me. I don't believe she changed it but it's the kind of things that our fellow listies explain wonderfully. Jessica: >Molly, who'd not only believe it, but maybe do Narcissa!Tonks a few favors >with regard to an order Member who shall remain nameless. >*cough*Lupin*cough* Tracking the werewolf who's tracking the werewolf who >likes to bite children and is running around with your son's new pals seems >like a vigilant mom thing to do. I agree if there is a moment to be motherly Fenrir raises all warning flags. Interesting approach. Jessica: >Where's the clumsiness, indeed? In fact, since we don't know very much about >Tonks, I find it interesting that the two things we know for sure about her >don't make an appearance in HBP. Is Tonks less clumsy when she's >grieving/in love? Why doesn't she ever metamorphose? You have nailed it, the point isn't if a change in clumsiness and abilities is natural or not for a 'love striken' magic user, and in the case of clumsiness I think is a matter of opinion that being down on spirits makes you /less/ clumsy. Is that we knew two things for sure and that are the ones that been not only challenged, buried in the GARBAGE SCOW. And if that isn't enough, she has changed patronus... She presents a character that I knew for two traits, without them, and with the new to this book rule that "severe emotional upheaval" can make you change your patronus and love sickness can deprive you of magic. If you accept love as explanation for everything, that's fine, if you don't, the warnings are clear that something funny is going on. Merope gets compared with Tonks as proof of it, but I don't find them on the same level, Tonks for what I know isn't undereducated and virtually ketp at home to be abused for all her life, isn't subjected to severe mistreatment, etc. Other characters in the HP series have endured problems(Cho was a clear candidate at the end of GoF-OoP), angst has been on the run for a long time, and we don't have an epidemy of magic abilities lost. Taken together, this makes the excuse just an excuse an not convincing, to me. Jessica: >Why does Harry compare >Draco's weight loss to Tonks's haggard look? Do "guilt" and "stress" read >the same as "lovesick"? Could Tonks be like Draco because they are, in >fact, on the same side? Could Tonks be ESE? I find Tonks uneasy, avoiding eye contact, and her appearances are quite surrealistic, too 'hit and run'. More than depressed (not discounting it) she seems a bit nervous. Purely imo. Jessica: >And most importantly, what does Snape think of Tonks? (Kidding. For the >love of all that is good and holy, KIDDING.) Kidding, of course :) He thinks she was better off when she was alone - so he sais it as the patronus remark - he's giving good advice (he agrees with Lupin) in his usual *cough*charming*cough* way. guz/guzguzu: > I have read these theories with great interest, though, I admit, I do > not believe them. >With all due respect, I will try to open up the meta- > question, which is: if you assume the theory that someone (Narcissa, or > anyone else) is impersonating Tonks, can you theorize the author's > motivation or idea behind such a story arc? But I can't theorize for anyone else, I have tried but there are themes covered with Narcissa that aren't touched so easily substituting with other character. It challenges Harry's PoV, but that is fair game considering Harry is 'an unreliable narrator', and at the same time it doesn't cross thematic lines. I feel she has warned us, also. It fits with the insistence present in HBP of 'dismeanor' magic - given Snape's first lessons elements have been used in this book - even we can tie the reference to the DoLD, I'm more than confident that it isn't going against author's intention expecting the potions presented in Slughorn's first class as to be considered. Maybe wrong, but not subvertive. I've had more scenes about identity or memory theft and imperio that I needed, by far. That she has made minor uses of it in the plot only tells me it should be being applied in a wider scale. I know once it's seen that something it's used in the plot, it tends to be authomatically devaluated in terms of seeking more explanations, but what the text is telling me is that I shouldn't disregard it in terms of the whole story, because she has hammered on the theme, so she can fairly use them at large without cheating. It's like putting some loaded guns on the table and then keeping refering to them and telling how anyone can carry it, that kids do use it to try to kill their parents, and then think everything's ok because we see them in action once. Not with a book to go, in a two book story. guz: >The motivation behind > Molly's, Lupin's, and Harry's words (with respect to Tonks) in HBP to > all be either completely wrong or lies? Harry gets her wrong all the book. Bill? Sirius? No! Lupin! - that explains all for him, but he's just accepting it as he accepted the first two explanations. But that's Harry habitual self. And why should OoP show every secret to Harry? I never get why is Harry to be presented with an open book of everything that's going on, he never has been. Maybe he is not opened to Voldemort know, but he still is an easy prey for a Legillimens and someone known to be betraying Voldemort will have a quick uneasy death. If DD didn't do anything about Draco in order to gain time, I don't know why they should tell him of a DE-sided changing or tempted to change sides, specially when he is obsessed with Draco so it won't go as unimportant info, it would easily be on the top of his head. You don't have to change the T/L ship or what is said about it, it can be real and a good means of camouflage. guz: > Or the motivation for such a > complex, multi-book story arc to spring up among minor characters, in > the second-to-last book of the series? I am not seeking clarification > upon the theory as far as the plot details, but as to how this idea > would fit into the series the author has presented. Do you think it > would fit in with the themes that JKR has presented so far? I'll try to explain. Oh, well, I was expecting that Regulus would come up again, because brothers are important, and being his age he could have been in school with interesting classmates, but not in the way it turned out. Anyway, it's tying the two books, even as a red herring. To me, secondary plots are the salt of the land, considering the basic story its quite known by now, the hero goes defeats biggest bad buddie saves the day. It would only add value having multi layered plotting, but I don't see it complex, it's only part of a family changing sides leaded by circumstances, I see Barty Crouch Jr. history more complicated. There's no strict need for a Snape Cissy ship, but it is an easy adding given the way Spinner's End is told. Snape's patronus is a nice add on. They are not so secondary characters and I think this started developing in OoP with the introduction of the Black family tree and Regulus and will end in 7, but is planted long ago. 1. We have a pack of families that are closely tied and make a subset of the WW at War, but instead of talking of mere extrangers or almost unnoticed (by Harry) alumni, they are close to Harry even as antagonists so they have more impact. As if they were representing a threatre play about some related families with members fighting in different sides. Far, unseen victims risk too much the Red Shirt sindrome. Blacks, Malfoys, Lestranges, Tonks, Weasleys. This is a consistend trend in the seven books. She deployed Sirius, Weasleys and Malfoys as important from earlier books and then she tied them up in a family tree, so having members of that families play important parts is not out of that pattern, imo. Of course, Lupin gets involved in a romantic way so he's not expected to be in the same family tree. 2. I hope it is accepted as an stable argument that DD is the human nearer to be the epythome of good. He offered faith in Draco, he offered him protection, I'm only making Narcissa as grey as her son instead of completely black. Here enters the integration of the Houses theme, also carried from OoP. 3. for the shipping part of the theory, well, I was as surprised as anyone as the sudden boom of shipping, but it seems she has made clear that it is a theme and not only a relief or character one, LV's birth is based on a dramatical ship. 4. there's something here that fits with the wise bearded wizard always dies and if you save a girl from a legendary monster you get her - obviously constructed with a lot of work but still conventional - with the three sisters - one of them was always bad - one always good and the youngest blond get the interesting heroine part of the story. 5. It can be a shortcut to Hx - that Malfoy hidden room that appeared in book 2 and has been searched for again in 6. Raise hands those who want to glimpse Malfoy Manor and its secrets (this isn't a retorical question, I'd like to know if there is an interest, but I suppose it enters in the realm of the polls section). So I think it doesn't clash with earlier books or author's intentions. You may like it or not (it /is/ difficult to buy, I assume that), but as theories go, I think I'm not backstabing canon, only having fun, fast and loose, as in the old days. Silmariel From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Oct 21 01:00:15 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 01:00:15 -0000 Subject: Why it had to be Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141940 Mhershey2001 wrote: > > In the weeks leading up to the release of OoP, after JKR revealed > that a major character died, there was a lot of speculation about who > it would be, and if I remember correctly, Sirius was not high on > anyone's list. Now that we know it was him, and now that we have had > about six weeks to analyze every single word/theme/hint/prediction in > the book, I am wondering what people's theories are about why, in the > name of the plot, Sirius had to die. ....... > Any other ideas? > > > Well I was just wondering... I read some good posts discussing how JKR's interviews very definitely say the death in OotP was, well, definitive, and how the plot of her books very much collides with Sirius being gone for good. For example, what would be the whole point of PoA and why make Harry (and us) suffer such excruciating agony, thus making Ana Karenina and Gone with the Wind look like a bit of light, cheerful reading. It made me wonder if the death in OotP that she mentioned in her interviews was really Sirius's. When you think about it, there were some close misses before the Veil scene, namely Mr. Weasley being attacked by Nagini and Hermione being hit by that purple curse. Both characters are very important to Harry and JKR specially likes Hermione. What if one of those "misses" were not a miss, but an actual death? What if that was the character death that got JKR so upset, and Sirius's was just a hoax? I know I sound crazy, but how wacky was the story of Lord Voldemort's Servant and the Potter's Secret Keeper being Percy's old rat? Needless to say I have SAD DENIAL written accross my forehead. I think Sirius being really dead would completely ruin the whole story, and why would JKR do that to her books? There must be another explanation. Maybe not this one, but who knows... There must be a plot twist coming. Lucianam From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 13:16:14 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:16:14 -0000 Subject: Destroying soul bits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141941 > zgirnius: > First, killing Voldemort (or any other person) I would presume does > not kill the soul. While this has not been explicitly stated in the > books, the soul in Christianity (most likely the source of JKR's > ideas about the soul) is the thing that lives on after someone dies. Personally, I by no means sure that this mutilated "thing" that "lives on" after the loss of its host can be called a soul in a Christian sense. If indeed Christianity is the source for Rowling's inspiration on the subject of horcruces it must be a very warped form of Christianity. a_svirn From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Oct 21 13:59:16 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:59:16 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141942 > AyanEva: > I really wished they'd just happend to mention the particular spread > that Trelawney's using. It would really help. I don't know what > positions these cards are in! Valky: That's a really important point, AyanEva. We could suppose that if JKR does have working knowledge of tarot that she would also know that the foundation of the reading is missing. If that was deliberate on JK's behalf and the cards are intended to allude to anything plotwise in their meaning, we are left with castles in the air no matter what the interpretation. IMO there are a couple of methods that Trelawney could be applying strictly from what is available to us. The first of these is reading from the bottom of the deck. THis is something a tarot reader can do just prior to laying a specific spread. The bottom of the deck cards are read in as though they were a sentence. When the sentence ends the reader has a general overview of the impdending as it relates to them. An experienced reader can tell from the sentence at the bottom of the deck things like the theme of the reading, and whether thre is a clear unimpeded view of the subject of the reading or if the, lets call it 'vibe' for the sake of brevity, has come under unexpected influence during shuffling. Okay thats almost a tarot lesson, and I don't mind if you're laughing because I know I sound like Trelawney. The point is that this is the theory of tarot reading, and it is possible tht Trelawney might be applying it. Now in that case it could make sense that Harry's presence has interfered with Trelawneys reading. Harry is projecting serious vibe throughout HBP (Snape hating Snape seeming to read his mind without looking at him,, obsessing about Malfoy's mission, attracting a crowd everywhere he goes) in all senses of it, so I can honestly concieve of subplotting that involves the effect Harry's aura is having as he goes through his sixth yer. So having said all that, the Tarot reading would then have been Trelawney checking her cards for influence and, finding Harry there, saying 'well that's not right the cards are marked' so she begins to shuffle again. This is what Tarot readers do. Okay so to apply interpretation using the first method we could say that the sentence is almost entirely for Harry. And now I will read those cards for Harry: They are all Swords - When swords come up in numbers like this there is too much air. Too much air causes instability - this can go to the point of obsession. A number of swords in a reading tend to indicate turmoil and overthinking. The first message to Harry (and probably to Trelawney too) is that they have unhealthy obsessions of the mind ging on right now. There are 4 swords. Having four Swords in a reading is actually good, rather than bad as an omen. The cards are divided half and half and although they all may be cards of individually bad omen, there is a paradoxical good to them. For Harry, this will mean that bad things will be ultimately for the good, and for Trelawney it could mean that she will get what she wants with thanks to tragic circumstances. The number combinations are 2+10+7 = 19 and Knave = 11 The Major Arcana cards 19 and 11, are respectively the Sun and Justice, hence the numerological theme of the cards is also a good omen. (But since they are playing cards and not tarot I won't go into that too deeply) The combination of the 2 10 and 7 of air cards in a sentence with the seven in the centre suggest that the mistrust issue is the strongest of the three issues. The two peripheral issues are a stalemate (which is true of both Harry and Trelawneys questions as we as Snape and Dumbledore) and the issue of disaster, destruction and violence. In this way the cards definitely echo Dumbledores very words to Harry - The Unbreakable Vow, not important, Attempts on my life, not important - But let me tell you this for the last time and please recognise it is important - I trust Severus Snape. Okay so a quick overview of the cards reveals the stalemate and the violence as peripheral and trust as central to Harry and Trelawneys question. Now we are ready to apply an individual reading of the cards. The sentence reads - There is two in opposition neither can win from here, but the threat of violence looms on one side. The most important matter at hand is that there is mistrust, a face-off, and a need to move on from the past (look it up if you don't believe me). The Fourth card is the close of the sentence. And here is where I need to bring Harry's question into the reading. What is Harry's question as he walks to Dumbledores office? Well it could be one of two things that appear with this scene at the beginning of the chapter, or it could be both of them. First Harry and Hermione were earlier wondering who the Half-blood Prince is - The cards give a concise answer to that question - A Dark young man who dislikes you. Second Harry is wondering what Dumbledore will be teaching him about in the lessons as this is Harry's first lesson. Again the cards give a concise answer - A Dark young man who dislikes you. So the sentence reads as above in answering one or both of these two questions. The sentence is: There is two in opposition neither can win from here, but the threat of violence looms on one side. The most important matter at hand is that there is mistrust, a face-off, and a need to move on from the past. Again with the second of the two options, the cards are echoing Dumbledores words that his lessons have everything to do with the prophecy. Therefore if the cards are a sentence in answer to Harry's question "What is Dumbledore going to teach me?" then the answer is that Dumbledore is going to teach Harry about the things that are in opposition ith each other (this could be Voldemorts own inner turmoil that Harry feels sympathy for during the lessons), a peripheral issue, he is going to teach Harry about Voldemorts magic and how to fight it, the other peripheral issue. But the central thing that Dumbledore will teach Harry is the seven of spades. Notice the number 7! Hint hint. And if the cards are answering the question "Who is the Half-blood Prince." Then the answer is the Half Blood Prince on one side is a two of spades- A person that can never seem to win a person in conflict with themself. On the other side HBP is a ten of Spades- A card that warns of danger and violence. And in the middle the very central issue of this person is trust, confrontation and a need to let go of the past. This all should be enough if you've been paying attention, but in case you weren't he is named. The Knave of Spades. (You know Knave of Spades actually translates to Prince of Division ie Half Blood Prince) A Dark young man that dislikes the questioner. Okay, probably nothing new there for anyone, except for the seven of spades corresponding to the central most important thing about DD's lessons. If any other tarot types want to take a shot at that I'd enjoy reading it. The other reading Trelawney could be doing AyanEva touches on here: AyanEva: > I just looked up 4 card spreads and got that 4 card spreads are for > making quick decisions. And that's all I could find. The positions > are: > 1)Ahead- What you need to do to achieve your goals > 2)Back- negative actions/obstacles that are going to get in the way > of you trying to reach your goal > 3)Stray- stuff that's causing you to stray > 4)Fortune- whatever's on this card is an added bonus > > Unfortunately, using this spread makes no sense whatsoever. NOTHING > fits. Valky: The reason things don't fit well is because this 4 card question spread is not necessarily read with the concomitance implied here. The relationships above give a lopsided reading, which is a style that fids itself distant from tarot and card reading traditions. Traditional tarot theory has a rule of thumb that things expand from a central point, much like life growing from a seed. Unidirectional card relationships like the ones above, although they might be used by some, would be different from methods that are based in the old school principles of Tarot. It might be that JKR, if she has indeed put a readable tarot spread in HBP, won't have put an unconventional one in, but a very steeped traditional one. Hence it would look more like this: 1. Past - where the questioners question comes from. 2. Present. - The Questioners hand in the matter. 3. Surrounding. - Influences that come into play. 4. The outcome or fortune. Falls separate from he other three. Does it make more sense now? I'll leave that one to everyone else to draw upon, since I have already done the one above and I don't think I should have all the fun Valky From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 15:59:38 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:59:38 -0000 Subject: Destroying soul bits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141944 > > zgirnius, previously: > > First, killing Voldemort (or any other person) I would presume does > > not kill the soul. While this has not been explicitly stated in the > > books, the soul in Christianity (most likely the source of JKR's > > ideas about the soul) is the thing that lives on after someone dies. > a_svirn wrote: > Personally, I by no means sure that this mutilated "thing" that "lives > on" after the loss of its host can be called a soul in a Christian > sense. If indeed Christianity is the source for Rowling's inspiration > on the subject of horcruces it must be a very warped form of > Christianity. zgirnius: Sorry, I am afraid I have not made myt position clear... I am not suggesting that Horcruxes come from any form of Christian theology. They are a twist on the idea that a wizard can hide his heart in a box away from his body to make himself unkillable, a motif which occurs in folktales/mythology. What I am trying to suggest *does* come from Christianity is her idea of, generally, what the soul is. And I think this is a reasonable supposition. Book- externally, Rowling has stated she is a Christian, and she writes in the context of a culture which is historically largely Christian. And she chooses to call the thing that gets torn by a murder a 'soul', which would have certain connotations for a lot of her readers. Book- internally, we see no religion explicitly in the WW, but evidence that Christianity has probably had its influence on the Potterverse as well (Christmas and Easter holidays, christenings, St. Mungo). So when people like Slughorn and Dumbledore start discussing something called the soul, and offer no explanation as to what, exactly, that is, I feel it is reasonable to suppose we and their listeners are supposed to have some idea what the soul is without such explanations. (The soul is the immortal whatever that lives on after a person dies, and goes to wherever it is souls go). The idea that certain heinous acts, including murder, do damage to the soul is also, I feel, reconcilable with not-very-out-there Christian ideas. The most 'stereotypical' Christian view, I suppose, is that souls go to Heaven, or to Hell, (or to Purgatory, or to Limbo), according to the just deserts of the individual soul, (beliefs about which of these and under what cirsumstances precisely vary widely, I'm no expert in comparative Christian theology). I've definitely encountered somewhere the idea that 'evil' souls don't actually go to a literal Hell of devils with pitchforks, and 'good' sould don't actually get issued golden harps and halos in order to join a literal Heavenly Choir, etc. That the miserable eternal fate of 'evil' souls is more along the lines of oblivion, or an eternal Sundering from Oneness with the Deity, or something along those lines. The whole soul-splitting thing would in this case be more of a mechanism that explains how this might work. One's evil acts can damage the soul and prevent it from meeting its intended Eternal Reward. Possibly, there could be a mechanism or mechanisms for healing the damage, (remorse, good works, faith, Grace, the appropriate Sacrament, what have you, again, varies according to flavor of Christian belief). In this light Horcrux-making would be especially harmful to the maker, since it would artificially ensure no such healing would take place during the maker's (prolonged) lifetime. I am not saying, by the way, that Book 7 will reveal the whole series to be some sort of heavy-handed explicitly Christian allegory, or that I would want it to be so. Just that I think the general idea of a soul as the 'immortal spiritual part' of a person is what JKR has in mind. I am also not saying this idea is *unique* to Christianity-that just happens to be the flavor of religion I (and presumably JKR) know most about. Christianity has undeniable roots in the Jewish faith, and IMO got some of its ideas and imagery from various other places as well. Any religion with notions of an afterlife or reincarnation, and the belief that one's actions in the earthly life to some extent correlate with the quality of that afterlife or reincarnation, would work. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 21 16:36:56 2005 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:36:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's own UV. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141945 "lupinlore" wrote: > a guilty Snape. It requires characters > that we have seen and known for a long > time to be OOC I think I can guess what you mean but I confess I've sort of lost track of all the acronyms used to describe Snape, ESE, OFH, OCC, DDM .. I will say that I've always thought Snape was a good character but not a good person, so if he turns out to be as evil as Voldemort it would not be inconsistent in my eyes and I've never understood why so many fans have a soft spot for Snape. > It would be cheesy for Harry to be right > after all and DD to be wrong. I don't think it would be cheesy to discover in the last book of the series that Harry Potter is the greatest and wisest wizard of all, it didn't start out with "Albus Dumbledore and the Philosopher's Stone" after all. > It undermines important moral messages I think one reason the first 6 books are so good is that JKR is trying to tell a story not send a message, we have Email for that. > and implies a morality that is objectionable. If Harry were a real person I'd want him to do the right thing, but as a literary character I just want him to do the most interesting thing. > Whichever way she moves to come out, > the response will probably make the > controversies that attended OOTP > and HBP look mild by comparison. I certainly hope so! My nightmare is that book 7 will be so bland that nobody will hate it, and nobody will love it either. Fortunately I don't think that will happen. Eggplant From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 17:09:34 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:09:34 -0000 Subject: Tarot Sequence WAS: Snape as the dark young man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141946 Wow, AyanEva, thanks for all that great stuff! > AyanEva responded to me: > Wait, where was The Hanged Man??? Oh, now you're tempting me into > doing just that; going through all 6 books with a tarot deck. The village pub at the start of GoF is called "The Hanged Man". Then there's the Levicorpus spell-- that suspends the victim FROM ONE ANKLE-- just like the Hanged Man card. So that's two bits of unmistakable Tarot imagery in HBP. I don't know if she's going through the whole deck in order, but there's some evidence that she is-- this last book was filled imagery that could relate to Temperance (all the cups and drinking, Harry's self-control, the emphaisis on balancing forces), the Devil (Riddle and Snape, and perhaps the love potions that sieze control of the body), and of course the Tower. If Rowling IS following the Tarot squence, Book 7 should be a jolly cheerful read: after the Tower comes The Star: a reaffirmation of hope and core values. Sirius? He's a star. Or Lily. The Moon: Dreamlike confusion; inspiration, but also an inability to tell fact from fiction. Luna! The Sun: Benevolence of the universe. Um, Hagrid? Judgement: going back over the past and making peace with it. Repentance and absolution. Snape. The World: Completion, harmonization of all divisions. Yay! I can't seem to get much traction on lining up the cards with the first four books though. --Sydney From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 17:19:16 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:19:16 -0000 Subject: Destroying soul bits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > KJ writes: > > > > ... I am curious about why a lot ... swear that Dumbledore would > > not ask anyone to rip his soul, but there is no hesitation to > > destroy a soul. > zgirnius: > In destroying a Horcrux and the soul bit inside, you're not really > destroying Voldemort's soul, just one piece of it. The 'at home' > soul continues to exist, ... > bboyminn: Sadly throughout this post, in my own elaborate way, I probably won't say much more that 'I agree'. Hopefully, I can add enough to make this post worth while. To the issue of Dumbledore not wanting anyone to sacrifice damage to their own soul to help him, I think people are ignoring that everyday we send soldiers off to war to kill or be killed; to damage their souls in way that will still profoundly affect them 50... 60... 70 years later. I frequently watch PBS or the History Channel productions about WWII where they interview veterans, and as they recount the events of that war, now over 60 years after the fact, they are still moved to tears by what they saw and did. Even more than 6 decades doesn't erase the pain of their experiences or the horrors of war. So, yes, Dumbledore understands war, he understands that many many many people will be called upon to 'damage their souls' for a cause greater than themselves. I think they should be honored and remembered for that great sacrifice both in the wizard world and in the real world. > > KJ: > > ... If Volemort's body is killed, does that kill his "at home" > > soul piece? Does one of the horcruxes support the life of the "at > > home" piece, or does it replace the loss of the "at home piece"? > > Does one horcrux get used up if Voldemort is killed? ... > zgirnius: > First, killing Voldemort... I would presume does not kill the soul. > While ... not ... explicitly stated ..., the soul in Christianity > ... is the thing that lives on after someone dies. It just goes > somewhere else (Heaven/Hell/Purgatory/etc...) > > My understanding of how Horcruxes work is that they prevent the soul > of someone who is killed from doing whatever it is that the soul > would normally do ... > bboyminn: I think Zgirnius has the right idea. The 'soul piece' stored in the Horcrux is separated from its body, in this case, Voldemort. So destroying the Horcrux doesn't destroy the soul piece, it simply releases it to go to where ever souls go. Without the soul piece's connection to the body, it has nothing to hold it here on earth, so it is simply released to go back to the heavenly ether from which it came. One could speculate that it goes back to the 'home soul' and rejoins it in the sense that it takes up residence in the 'home' body. I don't get this sense from the books, but it is possible. The Horcrux, in a vague sense, is a new 'body' for the soul piece, it is something that binds the soul piece to this earth; a vessel to contain it, just as the human body is nothing more than a vessel to contain a soul on earth. When that Horcrux body is destroyed, the soul goes to where ever souls go, just as if its human body were destroy. However, as long as one soul piece is earth bound, all 'embodied' soul pieces remain earth bound and most importantly the 'home soul', that is the magic the protects Voldemort from death. When the auxiliary soul pieces have been freed from this earthly existance, Voldemort's protection is gone and his 'home' soul piece becomes vulnerable; it can be release from its own earthly existance. I'm still finding it next to impossible to imagine how Harry and friends can possibly resolve the whole Horcrux mystery in such a short time. The only logical solution I can come up with is that Snape will discover the secrets of the Horcruxes and direct Harry to them. But, of course, is one year enough time to get Harry to listen to Snape? > > KJ: > > The Dementors are so disturbing to the WW because they > > suck out the soul. > > zgirnius: > I think the Dementors are different from someone destroying a > Horcrux. They suck out and permanently destroy the 'at home' soul. > ... They leave the body alive, but when the body later dies, > nothing is left of that person at all. > bboyminn: Here all I can say is a simple 'I agree'. The Dementor consumes the soul, and it is lost from both heaven and earth. Yet, the body remains behind, very much alive. In a metaphorical sense, a vehicle without a driver. > > KJ: > > Also, I wonder about the status of Inferi. Are they cadavers > > with no soul, or is their soul trapped in a dead mobile > > body? > > zgirnius: > Ooooh gruesome thought. No, from what I gather a Dark wizard first > kills someone, and then makes them an Inferius. So I think the soul > gets away at the moment of death. (I hope!) > bboyminn: Again, 'I agree'; although I'm not sure whether it is necesary for a DE to actually kill the body it re-animates. I think, although, I can't prove, that any avaiable dead body can be used. > > KJ: > > Then there are the Hogwarts ghosts, which would appear to be souls > > with no corporeal body. > > zgirnius: > To paraphrase ... Professor Snape, DADA Master at Hogwarts: > 'A ghost is an imprint of a departed soul'. > > What does that mean? A ghost is not the soul itself, apparently. > ... So maybe when a wizard dies, their consciousness/memories/self > usually go with their soul to wherever. But in cases like Nick's, > instead, the soul 'departs' and the rest stays, attached to an > 'imprint'. > bboyminn: While I agree that this is a reasonable explanation, I'm not sure I buy it. The phrase 'departed soul' could simply be a euphemism for someone who is dead. I'm not convinced it's meant to be take literally. I would speculate that a ghost is a earthbound soul that refuses to give up its attachment to its 'earthly vehicle'. Nick was afraid of death, so rather than let his soul crossover to the realm of souls, he clung tightly to the earthly essense that defined him in the only way he could understand 'self-definition'. That bound his soul and his earthly essense, but not his body, to the mortal realm. I have always wondered if an earth bound soul (a ghost) can be released and join the realm of souls. I've always felt very bad for Moaning Myrtle and have fantasized Fan Fic in which Harry finds a way to resolve the trama that binds Myrtle to the earth, thereby releasing here soul to 'crossover' and 'rest in peace'. If I had a chance, that's definitely one question I would like JKR to answer. > > KJ: > > Then there are the Hogwarts paintings that seem like > > they are alive, ..., but we are told that they have no souls. > > zgirnius: > Yes, and they all seem to be portraits of dead people. Presumably > their souls have gone on to wherever. > bboyminn: Again, a simple 'I agree'. I've equated Portraits with actors playing a role. They duplicate their subject nicely, but in the end, it is all play acting and no substance, which means no soul. > KJ: > > I don't think that he cast them off, I think that he hid them or > > gave them to trusted people to look after. I am hoping that he > > gives them all to Snape. Apparently, I have no personal investment > > in the saving of Volemort's soul. ;) > > bboyminn: Voldemort has already doomed his own soul. Like many criminals, Voldemort at some point might be sorry (repent), but he will be sorry he got caught and has to pay a price, not sorry he committed his acts. One brief side note here; the Riddle Diary was unique in that it wasn't simply a Horcrux, and was never intended to be used in the same manner as a normal Horcrux. A normal Horcrux is meant to be hidden and safeguarded; protected at all cost. The Diary, on the other hand, was Voldemort's back-up plan; Plan 'B'. At some point it was meant to be found and used; used to bring Voldemort back from the dead, and perhaps provide a vehicle in which his old 'Home Soul' could reside. So, the Diary was much more than a Horcrux, a combination of complex spell geared to a specific task, and should not be judged or held to the same standard as the other Horcruxes. > KJ continues: > > I am hoping for some explanation for all of this. Maybe JKR in > > building her plot line thought it would be amusing to make the > > villain harder to kill by making it necessary to kill six of him > > first, and forgot about all this other soul-oriented stuff. ... > > zgirnius: > I believe she thought Horcruxes and ghosts through somewhat > carefully. Some of this soul stuff will play a role in Book 7. She > has said in interviews that she was sorry to do it, but she had to > kill off Sirius. Just doing it to isolate Harry further is not > sufficient reason in my opinion. I think the fact that he is dead, > and not a ghost, will play some role in the resolution of Book 7. > bboyminn: Now we are at the heart of the matter and the very very scary part. So many plotlines to resolve, Sirius's story amoung them, and so very little time to do it in. The Soul parts, Godric's Hollow, Harry's eyes, the Prophecy, the Horcruxes, Sirius's role, the Dursleys, Dumbledore's death, Snape, Draco, Neville, Dobby, Ginny, and many more. I just don't see how it can all fit into one book of one year. As I've said before, JKR will either create the most stunning and spectacular masterpiece of a story, or it will be a complete dud, a total let down. Now all we have to do is wait two or three agonising years and we will have the answers to all ...then again, maybe not. Not sure what it's worth, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From darkcorgi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 12:52:42 2005 From: darkcorgi at yahoo.com (Corgi) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why it had to be Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051021125242.89973.qmail@web50001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141948 Lucinam wrote: Needless to say I have SAD DENIAL written accross my forehead. I think Sirius being really dead would completely ruin the whole story, and why would JKR do that to her books? There must be another explanation. Maybe not this one, but who knows... There must be a plot twist coming. Corgi: My personal theory concerning Sirius' death, especially after J.K.'s insistance that it was a necessary one, is that Sirius' falling through the veil is forshadowing how Harry ends up killing Voldemort without staining his soul with the killing curse. Maybe it's farfetched, but the way J.K. brings things up it's a possiblity along with the 'he never died' theory a lot of the fanbase has. Corgi From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 21 17:56:35 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:56:35 -0000 Subject: Why it had to be Sirius In-Reply-To: <20051021125242.89973.qmail@web50001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141949 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Corgi wrote: > > Corgi: > > My personal theory concerning Sirius' death, especially after J.K.'s insistance that it was a necessary one, is that Sirius' falling through the veil is forshadowing how Harry ends up killing Voldemort without staining his soul with the killing curse. Maybe it's farfetched, but the way J.K. brings things up it's a possiblity along with the 'he never died' theory a lot of the fanbase has. > > Corgi > errrgggghhh!! If that is how Harry defeats Voldy, I wonder if there is a *way* to come back from beyond the veil. If Voldemort never dies, then where is he? Would he reek havoc amongst the *others* that are behind the veil? Could this led to more fan-fic after book 7? It is a very good theory - I don't think it is farfetched at all, Corgi. Harry, I am sure, will make a visit or two to MoM in book 7. He might try to contact Sirius, as Luna did tell him those who have departed are always there - and you can hear them. colebiancardi (I do hope JKR does do some more writing on the Veil bit; I thought it would be in book 6, especially with the info that Luna gave Harry) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 19:28:31 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:28:31 -0000 Subject: Destroying soul bits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141950 zgirnius: So > when people like Slughorn and Dumbledore start discussing something > called the soul, and offer no explanation as to what, exactly, that > is, I feel it is reasonable to suppose we and their listeners are > supposed to have some idea what the soul is without such > explanations. (The soul is the immortal whatever that lives on after > a person dies, and goes to wherever it is souls go). a_svirn: I am not at all sure that its "reasonable" to suppose that. Dumbledore positively delights in speaking cryptically. Slughorn and Riddle certainly did not share their opinion on the subject in the Pensive scene. As for Harry he has shown quite an amazing lack of interest in the matters important throughout his Hogwarts career. Why, he didn't even think to ask what his parents' professions were! He was actually surprised to learn that werewolves sometimes kill. He found an unknown jinks in a fishy book and tried it on his best friend. And so on. Much too often he simply accepts the information for granted and doesn't give it much of a thought. The best example is the Dark Arts. *We* are certainly in the dark where they are concerned. And I strongly suspect that Harry doesn't know what is it that that makes them dark either. As for your definition of a soul there is nothing particularly Christian about it. In fact I would be hard-put to find *one* religion or tradition where there wouldn't be an idea of "the immortal whatever that lives on after a person dies, and goes to wherever it is souls go". zgirnius: I've definitely > encountered somewhere the idea that 'evil' souls don't actually go to > a literal Hell of devils with pitchforks, and 'good' sould don't > actually get issued golden harps and halos in order to join a literal > Heavenly Choir, etc. That the miserable eternal fate of 'evil' souls > is more along the lines of oblivion, or an eternal Sundering from > Oneness with the Deity, or something along those lines. The whole > soul-splitting thing would in this case be more of a mechanism that > explains how this might work. One's evil acts can damage the soul and > prevent it from meeting its intended Eternal Reward. a_svirn: I hope you won't think me a pedant if I say that this is NOT a Christian view on the subject? At least not the view of the established Churches, I won't presume to speak for all heresies and sects. Mere mortals can not destroy a soul neither their own, nor that of another. What they can and much too often do is to damn it to the perdition, but as for maiming and destroying it ? that's left for the Devil to do. Jesus says, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 21 19:51:31 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:51:31 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote a_svirn: > Well, if it comes to that I believe there is no such thing as > killing for the Greater Good sake from the truly Christian point of > view, is there? Christ said in no uncertain terms that, "Whosoever > therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall > teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of > heaven". Of course, there is and always has been a certain > disparity between the Christians' Moral Absolutes and their > everyday life but that's again the difference between the morality > and necessity. Geoff: You are quite correct in highlighting that comment of Jesus. In the modern New International Version (NIV) which I use, the quote is translated as "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven". (Matthew 5:19a) Just after this comment, Jesus goes on in the Sermon on the Mount "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago `Do not murder' and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment". (Matthew 5:21 NIV) Interestingly, the version I am actually have in front of me while I write this has footnotes and it makes the following comment about the word translated above as `murder': "Several Hebrew and Greek verbs mean `kill'. The ones used here and in Exodus 20:13 specifically mean `murder'". Exodus 20:13 is part of the list of the Ten Commandments and says (in modern versions), `You shall not murder'. So we have in actuality come full circle to the question of murder versus accidental killing/killing in battle which has occupied some of our minds recently. That of Harry successfully dealing with Voldemort in the next book and whether that will classify as murder and split his soul. On the question of the greater good, taking the Nazi example, would it have been better for Von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators to have killed Hitler in 1944 which would possibly have saved thousands of lives or shrugged their shoulders and said "Well, its up to God"? God works through human agents and, in a situation like this I feel that it would be incumbent upon us to try to stop the murder, injury, torture and terror dealt out to innocent people at the whim of this megalomaniac not out of hate or anger but because it needs to be stopped even if that includes killing. And so it is in the wizarding world with Voldemort. a_svirn: > As for Draco looking for the biggest bully, why should he? He is > not in the least like Wormtail. Geoff: I believe he is in some ways. Wormtail is the sort of character whom you sometimes meet tagging along on the coat-tails of someone more powerful because he gets a vicarious thrill and feeling of being with the top dogs although, in reality he is just small beer in the game. In Hogwarts, Draco is the king of Slytherin. He has had it drummed into him from early years that he is a Malfoy, he is privileged and he is expected to achieve great things. He is fawned on by his cronies, he enjoys trying to rile those he doesn't like and he is smarmy to teachers he likes. But he is looking to be with the biggest bully currently on the playground - Voldemort. He wants to be a Death Eater and thinks that that will be a passport to a life of pleasure and ease. By the end of HBP, tiny cracks are appearing in the fa?ade and he is possibly beginning to see that life will not always be a bed of roses if he continues the way he has begun. Remember that I write this, by the way, as one of the opinion that Draco /could/ be redeemed. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 19:52:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:52:37 -0000 Subject: Killing a person or soul In-Reply-To: <4357338F.3090709@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141952 KJ wrote: > Plus, a question that I posted before, but has not been answered: Why is it that no one on the list is at all concerned about killing viable soul pieces. He has already killed one without knowing what it was, and Dumbledore killed one. Why is it of concern that Harry might split his soul killing Voldemort, but there is no concern about the destruction of soul parts? I am interested in your opinion on this. Presumably killing a person does not destroy the soul, merely the earthly body. Harry has been specifically sent after Voldemort's souls. Carol responds: I've read the entire thread but haven't found an answer to your question that quite matches what I want to say, so I've returned to the original post. First, your use of the term "Voldemort's souls" (plural) is interesting and is possibly the source of your confusion. As I understand it, a person has only one soul, the one he is born with. Voldemort has fragmented that single soul through murder and then separated the soul pieces by placing them in Horcruxes. As zgirnius pointed out, in so doing, he has "anchor[ed]" his soul in this world, preventing it from passing on into whatever afterlife JKR envisions. What he has not done is to create additional souls. No human being, wizard or not, can do that. In other words, to destroy one of Voldemort's "soul bits" is not to kill or destroy a soul, nor is it murder. Voldemort's original soul, however mutilated, remains in him, whether he is Vapor!mort or is occupying a restored body. Destroying the soul bits is necessary to make Voldemort mortal--like every other wizard in the WW. And Voldemort *must* die or be destroyed or the WW will never be free of the evil he embodies. (Whether killing him constitutes murder is a matter for another post.) As for the "soul bits" being "viable," they require a body that they were not born into, the preserved memory of young Tom, for example. Had Memory!Tom been able to steal Ginny's life force to keep that body alive (as opposed to possessing Ginny and using her body), he would have had a "soul" that was not his own but a fragment of Vapor!mort's. IOW, he would not be a real human being born into this world with a soul and a body but, at best, a clone of the original Tom Riddle. (What would have happened if the two Voldies had encountered one another, I can't guess.) Harry didn't "murder" Diary!Tom. He destroyed the memory (young Tom's body and personality) and (though he didn't know it) a bit of a slightly older Tom's soul. But *no real person died* as a result. Voldemort simply became a little bit less immortal, or rather, a bit closer to the mortality that is normal for a human being. Whether the "soul bits" in the other Horcruxes, which unlike the diary were not designed to be interactive, are "viable" in this way, I don't know. I don't think they are, or the ring Horcrux would have possessed Dumbledore (instead of striking him with a curse that would have killed him if not for Snape's "timely action"). Instead, DD, too, brought LV a step closer to the death that awaits us all. Killing Voldie's body once the Horcruxes are destroyed will prevent him from ever taking bodily form again--surely a good thing for the WW in general. Whether it will also enable his mutilated soul to enter the afterlife (as represented by the veiled archway in the DoM), I don't know. If not, I'll shed no tears for him. He murdered others for no better reason than to make himself immortal, and he himself separated the fragments. If his soul is destroyed when his body dies, it's no one's fault but his own. Carol, who wanted to provide a simple, canonical explanation and found herself with a lengthy interpretation instead From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 21:36:06 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:36:06 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141953 Neri wrote: here we only have one canonical and well-established timeline, and the inconsistency is only with Dumbledore's very vague and hole-riddled explanations that everybody acted "at once". Only if everybody acted at once, how come Harry is having a public collapse, breaks into Umbridge's office, reports a mind attack by Voldemort, taken at wand point to the Forbidden Forest, closely saved from a herd of rampaging centaurs by a rampaging giant, takes a flight all the way from Scotland to London on invisible horses, enters a breached and deserted Ministry, tours the wonders of the Department of Mystery and has a chat with a bunch of Death Eaters, and he still beats the Order to the mark? Calling this a "math-based inconsistency" is a bit of an understatement. > What I find interesting here is that JKR invested considerable effort in Snape's controversial involvement in the OotP climax. She could have easily avoided having Umbridge invite him to her office at all, therefore taking any responsibility from of his shoulders and supplying a very satisfying explanation why it took the Order several hours to respond. Yet JKR insisted on shoving him into the middle of this plot, telling us he understood Harry was under a mind attack by Voldemort, and then she had Dumbledore covering up for him in a rather unsatisfying manner, all this while she knew of her plans for Snape in HBP. It was very bad plotting by her if she didn't consider the elementary timeline of Snape's involvement. Carol responds: As you may know if you've ever attempted to write fiction, it's very difficult to make the actions of two sets of characters match up within the same time frame. In this case, we don't see Snape's actions, either, and we can only guess what some of them are. With regard to Snape, we have the word of two characters on opposite ends of the evil spectrum (Dumbledore and Bellatrix) that the Order arrived fairly soon after the DEs attacked Harry and his friends. (We can estimate the time frame of the battle sequence for ourselves at perhaps half an hour.) In any case, if DD believed that Snape had deliberately delayed or behaved inappropriately, he would not have the deep and often-stated trust in him that we see in HBP. Also, you can't count Harry breaking into Umbridge's office as part of the timeline. That occurs before he communicates to Snape what he thinks is happening. Snape leaves Umbridge's office and immediately contacts Sirius--which also constitutes contacting the Order since at least five other members are present at GP. He presumably tells them what has happened and establishes that Black is not in danger. He can't go back to Harry with this information. He's been kicked out of her office. But somehow he finds out that Harry has gone to the Forbidden Forest (presumably he also knows about Hermione and Umbridge). His source of information can't be Neville and company, as they'd have mentioned this to Harry. I'm assuming that he set Filch to watch the doors to see if Harry and his friends ran out of them. Filch reporting that Umbridge was out of the building would leave Snape free to return to Umbridge's office, sort out the various hexes placed on the Slytherins, and get the story of what had happened. At this point he apparently reports to Dumbledore, who knows that Snape intended to go into the forest to search for them. Then, we must assume, he goes into the forest and does not find them. He knows that Harry can't apparate and that he was not carrying a broom when he ran out with Umbridge. Nevertheless, he somehow puts two and two together as only snape can and determines that Harry and friends have actually gone to the MoM. He doesn't know they've done so or how long it will take to get there. He then returns to his office (or Umbridge's to use the fireplace so he can talk with them directly). He tells them what he knows or has deduced and tells Black to remain behind because Dumbledore is coming--which means that he has also contacted Dumbledore before contacting the Order. Unless you can explain to me how Snape knew that Harry had gone into the forest without having someone report the information to him (and obtaining more details from his own students, whom he was bound by his duty as a teacher and their HoH to unhex) and how DD could know to go to the Order without Snape's having contacted him (probably twice), I see no other explanation for Snape's side of the action. And Snape's actions would have taken about as long as those of Harry and friends--or at least we can accept that JKR believes they would in a work of fiction. There is no need to posit a deliberate delay when the outcome requires him to have performed something like the actions I have outlined. If you want to place Snape's and Harry's actions on a realistic timescale, perhaps Harry's would have taken a longer time--three or four hours as compared to two (events occurring after the Order's arrival can't count as part of the five hours). As for me, I'm willing to suspend any disbelief I might have regarding the time frame and take Dumbledore's (and Bellatrix's) word for the reasonably quick appearance of the Order. Or, I should say, JKR's implied word. Carol, who will regard the "missing five hours" as canonical only when JKR herself acknowledges its existence From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Oct 21 07:22:39 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:22:39 -0000 Subject: Like it or not. WAS Re: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141954 Valky: > The fact IMO is that we generally do find something in other > peoples theories that we assume will dissappoint us. But we > generally aren't dissappointed by the books themselves whether > they adhere to theories we disliked or not. I distinctly recall a > lot of vehement naysaying regarding Alla's pre HBP theory that > Snape would do something awful before he is 'redeemed' or > otherwise completed his character arc, a *lot* of saying it will > flatten his character like a line of bulldozers. But those very > people are the very same people who are loving discussing every > facet of book six. There is *not* widespread disappointment. But > Alla *was* right, JKR made a story out of it that was loved and > accepted by her fans. IOW, Lupinlore, don't you think you might be > jumping the gun a little here? Not at all. Of course, a lot of it depends on the circles you move in. I know a lot of people who primarily got interested in the Potterverse through interest in amateur and professional writing. Many of them (at least a dozen I can think of without straining my mind) were so utterly disgusted with HBP that they have left Potter fandom altogether. Of course, many haven't, and some loved the book. But I would have to say that in the particular circles I move in disappointment in HBP was more the rule than the exception, and much of the disappointment was quite vehement. I am one of the more liberal members of those circles in that I think that HBP on its own is pretty good, but falls down badly when you try to link it into the series as a whole (and that may, in fact, be more the fault of OOTP than HBP, but that's another question). Is that representative of general reaction to the Potterverse? Probably not, but then again neither, I suspect, are the discussions on this list. I really don't know how you would gauge something like that. Sales numbers? I don't know, a lot of people will continue to read the series just to see what happens, or to be in on the latest trend. But taking a quick look at several fanboards I would have to say that after HBP the expressions of disappointment, while not in the majority, and not as pronounced as with OOTP, were very frequent and significant, and were in the majority on some particularly boards. And, before anyone objects, that is the case even when you filter out the vehement shipping reaction. Along with that disappointment almost always comes a sense of foreboding about how JKR will handle things once she moves out of the corner she's in. So, no, I don't think I'm jumping the gun. Given the disappointment level and vigorous reactions to both OOTP and HBP, where much less important matters were at stake, I think its safe to say that JKR is going to provoke a great howl whichever way she moves. I don't guess that in itself is necessarily good or bad, although I personally would have preferred had she kept her options more open. But good, bad, or indifferent, I think it's inevitable. Lupinlore From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Oct 21 19:10:26 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:10:26 -0000 Subject: TBAY: OOP: Too much butterbeer--Terry gets the D!Ts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141955 terryljames wrote: > Oh!" she said excitedly, remembering. "Isn't it convenient that > the only classmate who sees Sirius fall is Neville?" > > D!T frowned. "Why is that convenient? For whom?" > > "For JKR, of course," Terry said. "Neville is the only one--besides > Luna--who could already see the thestrals. So Harry can't ask him > if he can suddenly see them after he saw Sirius 'die'. Considering > the way JKR's mind works, don't you find that a bit suspicious?" Indeed! It's a clue, it's a clue! Let's toast to thestrals. Where's the rum? Lucianam73 looks around the deck and hopes it is empty only because it's 4 in the morning... or it that the stench of desertion? Oh no, thank God, it's only Winky and her booze. She was presumably on watch tonight, but no way she'll be watching any enemy vessels aproach stuck upside-down in a barrel. She's snoring ever so loud. Lucianam73 carefully removes the bottle of rum from Winky's limp hand and proceeds to toast. She toasts several times, being completely soaked; the result of swimming across the seas to reach S.S. SAD DENIAL. That was one hard ship to find she tells ya! But no matter. Two years and one half-blood Prince after the "Drapery Incident", Lucianam73 finally has stepped on deck! After fighting off sharks, killer whales and petrol leaks. Bah, it was either that or staying in shore, and who wants that??? Lucianam73 says hi to her fellow shipmates and flashes her t-shirt: "Padfoot gone == no more fun" Well, to be honest HBP was a fun read. It deserves to be kept in the ship's library, right? But snogging and horcruxes and pensieve plunges are all very interesting and distracting, but not enough to look like a consistent storyline. At least not as consistent a storyline as Sirius's was. See what I mean...: (Lucianam73 turns around so crew members can shake their heads in horror at the back of ther tee:) "Absence makes the plot grow softer (in a bad sense)." She sits atop Winky's barrel, surveilling the horizon as she drains the last drops of rum in the bottle. She hopes for a emotionally consistent and (this is the catch) happy ending. There must be a catch in that interview, you see (the "definitely dead one). There must. Lucianam73 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 21 22:40:52 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:40:52 -0000 Subject: Destroying soul bits In-Reply-To: <435845A8.80007@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141956 KJ wrote: > yes, I am curious about why a lot of the list will swear that > Dumbledore would not ask anyone to rip his soul, but there is no > hesitation to destroy a soul. > Why would it be less distressing to kill a soul than to kill a > person? SSSusan: Heh heh. Good question! Given that I'm a firmly committed DDM!Snaper, believing DD *did* ask/plead/command Snape to kill him, who has several friends who argue that DD would *never* ask that of anyone... it is a good question to raise: How could someone who'd NEVER ask a person to tear his/her soul be nonchalant about destroying soul bits? Since I happen to believe DD *would* and probably *did* ask people [Snape, Harry] to kill for A Cause (whether that rips the soul or not), it's consistent with that to have him also not be squeamish about sending Harry off to destroy soul bits. But I would be curious to have someone from the other viewpoint weigh in. If you DON'T think DD would ever ask someone to kill/tear off a soul bit, how *does* it make sense that he doesn't seem to mind destroying Voldy's soul pieces? Siriusly Snapey Susan From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 21 23:14:56 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:14:56 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141957 > Geoff: > > Interestingly, the version I am actually have in front of me while I > write this has footnotes and it makes the following comment about the > word translated above as `murder': > "Several Hebrew and Greek verbs mean `kill'. The ones used here and > in Exodus 20:13 specifically mean `murder'". > > Exodus 20:13 is part of the list of the Ten Commandments and says (in > modern versions), `You shall not murder'. > > So we have in actuality come full circle to the question of murder > versus accidental killing/killing in battle which has occupied some > of our minds recently. a_svirn: Well, no, not quite. While I'll be first to acknowledge that most Hebrew scholars translate *ratsach* as `murder', I don't think that you can find the opposition between "to kill" and "to murder" in the Holy Scripture. The same word *ratsach* is used for manslaughter, killings in the battle and premeditated murder of a man. So I'd say the sixth commandment is pretty straightforward, however you choose to translate the verb in question. (My version says "thou shalt not kill" And the same translation in the New Testament: "Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment" Matthew 5:21 ) > Geoff: > On the question of the greater good, taking the Nazi example, would > it have been better for Von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators to > have killed Hitler in 1944 which would possibly have saved thousands > of lives or shrugged their shoulders and said "Well, its up to God"? > God works through human agents and, in a situation like this I feel > that it would be incumbent upon us to try to stop the murder, injury, > torture and terror dealt out to innocent people at the whim of this > megalomaniac not out of hate or anger but because it needs to be > stopped even if that includes killing. > > And so it is in the wizarding world with Voldemort. a_svirn: As for the greater good and Von Stauffenberg, I wonder where does this touching faith in his moral integrity come from? He was one of the top Nazi officials, for God's sake! He might well have had a bone or two to pick with Hitler, he quite rightly believed the Fuhrer mad, he was of the opinion that it was fatal for Germany to fight all the allies simultaneously, and so it indeed proved. But *that* makes me think that it was probably a good thing that he failed. His success was likely to result in Thousand-Year Reich where the sun does not set. > > a_svirn previously: > > As for Draco looking for the biggest bully, why should he? He is > > not in the least like Wormtail. > > Geoff: > I believe he is in some ways. Wormtail is the sort of character whom > you sometimes meet tagging along on the coat-tails of someone more > powerful because he gets a vicarious thrill and feeling of being with > the top dogs although, in reality he is just small beer in the game. > > In Hogwarts, Draco is the king of Slytherin. He has had it drummed > into him from early years that he is a Malfoy, he is privileged and > he is expected to achieve great things. He is fawned on by his > cronies, he enjoys trying to rile those he doesn't like and he is > smarmy to teachers he likes. But he is looking to be with the biggest > bully currently on the playground - Voldemort. He wants to be a Death > Eater and thinks that that will be a passport to a life of pleasure > and ease. a_svirn: Frankly I don't see from your description and indeed from the books how come their cases to be similar. Draco does not have to enter anybody's service to get a "passport to a life of pleasure and ease". He never knew anything else. From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Oct 22 00:15:26 2005 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:15:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4g7bqh$34kao6@smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141958 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > > Ceridwen now: > > > Can anyone point me to the first reading, where Trelawney is turning > > > over the hand of spades? The reason I want to > > > know is, does anyone else think the 'Knave of Spades' might refer to > > > Snape? He has dark hair and eyes, is young compared to Dumbledore, > > > is possibly troubled, and he dislikes Trelawney. What else was in > > > that reading? > > Was I the only one who took this scene at face value? I thought it was JKR being funny. After "no that can't be right," Trelawney runs smack into the troubled young man who dislikes her (Harry). Allie [Now Tammy says:] Oh, no, Allie, you're not the only one. I read it as straightforward as that, as well. Trelawney turns up a card about a troubled, dark young man who dislikes her, and suddenly there's Harry, a troubled, dark young man who dislikes her. Straightforward, simple, and obvious. Just like the rest of the books, until I started hanging out around here, that is. ;-) I'm sure that JKR has some understanding of Tarot, or she wouldn't have had Trelawney use it, knowing readers who use Tarot would call her on her blunders (look what we do to her maths, after all!). However, a good writer will not assume that ALL of her readers will of course know all about anything she uses in her books (one thing I just *hate* are authors who scatter their manuscript with dialogue in other languages; after all, just how many of us actually HAVE several different X-to-Y translating dictionaries sitting by our reading chair, huh?). A good writer will, every chance she can, use the simple, straightforward reading to make her point, rather than entrusting her desired result to some relatively obscure knowledge that only a handful of her readers will have access to? The various meanings attributed to Tarot cards (and I do mean 'various', as they vary from deck to deck and from reader to reader) would certainly be a fun and interesting way to slip in a little something extra into the meaning of that scene, which is fine -- make us stretch for the secondary meanings, please, it's good for us. But so far, she has never (that I can recall) made us really stretch and study and do research in order to get her primary meaning. It's just not good authorship to make your readers work too hard to turn the page like that. Sorry, I'm rambling. I should know better than to post before . . . aw, heck, I should know better than to post. I just wanted Allie to know she's not alone. :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Oct 22 00:15:28 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:15:28 -0000 Subject: Like it or not. WAS Re: Which characters are dynamic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141959 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > I really don't know how you would gauge something like that [if fans are or aren't satisfied]. Sales numbers? I don't know, a lot of people will continue to read the series just to see what happens, or to be in on the latest trend. But taking a quick look at several fanboards I would have to say that after HBP the expressions of disappointment, while not in the majority, and not as pronounced as with OOTP, were very frequent and significant, and were in the majority on some particularly boards. Hickengruendler: However, the fanboards are not representative either. We here on the boards discuss every tiny little plot detail and possible hint about two hundred times. We are bound to be less surprised by JKR's plot twist than the average reader, and that is entirely our own fault, because we have read or written countless theories, and some of them have to be true. I am, for example, sure, that some online fans will probably complain should R.A.B. turn out to be Regulus, because it was too obvious. For the averager reader, however, it is not too obvious, because they haven't spent the time between OotP and HBP speculating, if Regulus might be Stubby Boardman and important to the storyline. It is instead a solvable, but not too easy clue regarding a minor ministry. (Not that I regret it. I would not want to miss those engaging discussions. And I at least loved OotP and also liked HBP, in spite of having read both books after joining the online fandom). Neither are, as you correctly said, the Potter fans from our real life representative, as you rightfully stated. Every real life person I asked (which does include a literature professor in my university) liked the HBP, in fact, most of them probably better than I did (sorry, I can't really get over the shipping subplot, even though I find the rest of the book really good. And I'm not a shipper, therefore this is not the reason, why I didn't like it). Lupinlore: > So, no, I don't think I'm jumping the gun. Given the disappointment > level and vigorous reactions to both OOTP and HBP, where much less > important matters were at stake, I think its safe to say that JKR is > going to provoke a great howl whichever way she moves. Hickengruendler: For sure it will. There is no way around it. In a fandom as big as the Potter one it is downright impossible to satisfy everyone. Personally, I think what JKR did at the end of HBP regarding Snape and Dumbledore showed a lot of guts. She had one fandom favourite kill another. Since she doesn't seem to be stupid, she had to know in which state it would leave the fandom. And she said in an interview, that she does not care if in the end she will only have seven readers, she wants to keep to her original story. She also admitted to have made minor changes, but I think we all agree that the Dumbledore death scene is that important, that it had to be planned from the beginning. Lupinlore: I > don't guess that in itself is necessarily good or bad, although I > personally would have preferred had she kept her options more open. > But good, bad, or indifferent, I think it's inevitable. Hickengruendler: I disagree with you. What you are suggesting would IMO be the boring variant. A writer first and foremost has to tell the story. If fans like it, than it's excellent, if they don't, than bad luck. They might have valid reasons to dislike it or they might not, but I surely admire a writer more, who has guts and does the controversial thing, compared to one who tries not to upset the readership. Hickengruendler From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 01:03:08 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:03:08 -0000 Subject: Did Snape owe DD a life debt? Was Re: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141960 Sydney wrote: >And I think the whole little game started back in the day, the day >when Snape spun his tale of 'deepest remorse'. Why did Dumbledore >believe him? Because Snape was trying to kill himself at the time, >that's why. He was on the ledge, and Dumbledore talked him down, by >telling him that he had to at least do what he could to make amends >first. And I think he extracted a promise not to take his own life >directly. Colebiancardi wrote: >Hmmm...I don't think Snape wants any curse, nor do I believe Snape >is suicidal. I think that he takes a lot of risks for the greater >good in defeating Voldy, but I think if he can figure out a way to >live, he will do it. If Snape's remorse to DD included killing >himself, then what is stopping Snape from offing himself over the >last 16 years? Nothing. Saraquel: There are parts of Sydney's post that I really like, but I do agree with Colebiancardi's point that Snape has not been suicidal for the past 16 years. But no-one seems to have taken up the possibility that if, as Sydney suggests and I can really buy, Snape was suicidal after the prophecy-death of Potters scenario (add into the mix someone's credible suggestion that Voldemort messed with Snape's family and it makes it even more probable) then would DD saving his life mean that Snape had a life debt to DD? Snape would then be bound by two life debts to people in the Order. As some listies may remember, I posted quite a detailed analysis of OFH!Snape a while ago, and although I did it as an academic exercise, I afterwards found that it is the most plausible explanation for me. As what I'm going to say here meshes in with that post this is the link if you're interested ? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139635 Those 16 years which Snape has spent at Hogwarts, have been spent unwillingly, IMO. Not knowing the terms of a life debt, it is hard to know why Snape stayed at Hogwarts ? whether it was, as he said in Spinner's End, to escape Azkaban, or whether it was because he was bound in some way to DD which allowed DD to dictate terms. I don't think that Snape is suicidal now and he has been sitting on (IIR) two unwanted life-debts for all his adult life. In that case, I can see that as really bringing out the probably latent, bitter and resentful man. Probably with the attitude that Sirius, James, Voldemort and DD between them had robbed him of his choice in life and forced him to live out his life in a way that he would not and could not have chosen ? teaching dunderheads at Hogwarts, when what he really wants (IMO ? see my previous post) would probably be a research wizard's post in the Dept of Mysteries ? cutting edge big boys stuff, with all the respect that goes with it. (I know that according to Arthur most wizards think that the DoMyst wizards are wierdos, but that can be the reaction in our world, but it still doesn't stop us from admiring their inventions and discoveries and offering them Nobel prizes.) This might also fit with JKR's theme of choices. In this scenario, Snape is the character who has experienced being denied choice. The result of the choices he did make ? going after Lupin and telling Voldemort about the prophecy ? was to be denied choice for a long time. If, by saving Harry's life in PS, he repaid his debt to James (if indeed it was passed on) and by saving DD's life after the Horcrux! ring episode he repaid his life debt to DD, then at the start of HBP, we have, for the first time, a Snape who is free to act as he chooses. This would explain why an OFH!Snape *would* save DD's life and not let him die. We know that he saves DD's life before Spinner's End, but we don't know if it was before or after that Snape was offered the DADA job. In my mind, there is definitely a reason why Snape resents DD, which pushes him to kill him at the end of HBP. I've been wondering about it for a couple of weeks now, and this scenario could fit the bill (I still like the scenario where Snape gave Pettigrew to DD, and DD unintentionally became one of the causes for the Potter's death - too much for some listies to handle, according to the responses I got on that one - but I think culpable!DD would be a really good bang!) Anyway, back to this thread ? the question arises, if we assume this scenario to be correct, as to why Snape stayed on at Hogwarts at all, after repaying his life-debt to DD. Why did DD offer him the post and why did he take it? Was it offered before or after he saved DD's life? In what follows, I think it makes more sense for this speculation to think it was offered before. Going back to my previous OFH!Snape scenario ? Snape doesn't want either DD or Voldemort around, but would ideally like to see Lucius Malfoy in the big MoM job. He knows that according to the prophecy, Harry is the one to top Voldemort. DD is useful to Snape because he is destroying horcruxes and priming Harry to take out Voldemort. (I also think a Snape/Regulus!Cave scenario is the most probable explanation, and this works with OFH!Snape not telling DD that the horcrux had been taken from there.) So Snape wants to continue in his DD-and-Voldmeort-trust-me role as long as possible hoping for his enemies taking each other out - Harry surviving wouldn't worry Snape, he has little regard for him and doesn't see him as a threat. As Sydney says, Snape takes the DADA job willingly because he wants out ? but, IMO, not as Sydney suggests ? out of life, but out of Hogwarts with the possibility of some revenge. Now we could consider the possibility that Snape knows that the curse will get him as soon as he takes the job, but doesn't care, because if it brings out the worst in him, that's what he has been wanting to come out for 16 years. All that bitter and burning resentment being offered an opportunity to express itself. Here is a man who has lived his life in bondage and debt, perhaps he sees it as a way of turning being bound to his own advantage, a delicious irony ? as some have suggested, beating the curse ? not by preventing it from working, but by allowing it to work. Hence turning curse to blessing in his twisted eyes. The question for me then, is not why did Snape take the job, but why did DD offer it? Jury's out on that one at the moment. OK, Spinner's End. That OFH!Snape, having just escaped one debt, would immediately tie himself into another, is a problem. However, the one he is tying himself in debt to is the wife of the person he really wants to see in the top job, in this theory. The family he is pledging himself to protect is the Malfoy family. Maybe he is not as much interested in what Draco has to do, as interested in helping his friends survive. When Narcissa adds the third clause, Snape knows he is up for either killing Harry or DD (depending on whether he knows the plan or not ? I suspect that he has not been told, but guesses that it must be to take out DD as he knows Voldemort wants Harry for himself.) The flinch is because he knows he is pledging to kill DD, the man from whom he has just been freed from a life debt. In OFH!Snape's master plan, it probably wasn't himself who was to kill DD, but that he would want DD out of the way is credible, so he goes ahead and agrees, probably knowing at that moment, that the curse has kicked in. Saraquel Who is now working full-time and has little time to keep up with the posts, let alone write them! From kjones at telus.net Sat Oct 22 01:33:39 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:33:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Killing a person or soul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435996F3.8080602@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 141961 justcarol67 wrote: > First, your use of the term "Voldemort's souls" (plural) is > interesting and is possibly the source of your confusion. As I > understand it, a person has only one soul, the one he is born with. > Voldemort has fragmented that single soul through murder and then > separated the soul pieces by placing them in Horcruxes. As zgirnius > pointed out, in so doing, he has "anchor[ed]" his soul in this world, > preventing it from passing on into whatever afterlife JKR envisions. > What he has not done is to create additional souls. No human being, > wizard or not, can do that. KJ writes: You make a very good point here that Voldemort has only one soul, and this may have an impact in book 7. I do not find anything in canon that states that each one of the pieces of soul could not under the right circumstances, become a complete Voldemort. I am not convinced that their only purpose is an anchor, as there is canon to support the soul piece (and memory) becoming a live person at the loss of Ginny's life. It may have been to prevent this from happening that caused the damage to DD arm. > In other words, to destroy one of Voldemort's "soul bits" is not to > kill or destroy a soul, nor is it murder. Voldemort's original soul, > however mutilated, remains in him, whether he is Vapor!mort or is > occupying a restored body. Destroying the soul bits is necessary to > make Voldemort mortal--like every other wizard in the WW. And > Voldemort *must* die or be destroyed or the WW will never be free of > the evil he embodies. (Whether killing him constitutes murder is a > matter for another post.) KJ writes: I actually have no argument with this. I have seen quite a few posts where the poster believed that any kind of killing constituted murder and that Harry should not be encouraged to do this. I am thinking that in calling the spares a horcrux it takes away from the impression that these pieces are part of a soul. I am just curious that some posters have considered destroying Voldemort to be murder and unacceptable, but have raised no concerns about systematically destroying his soul, little bits at a time. Why or why not? snip Harry didn't "murder" Diary!Tom. He destroyed > the memory (young Tom's body and personality) and (though he didn't > know it) a bit of a slightly older Tom's soul. But *no real person > died* as a result. Voldemort simply became a little bit less immortal, > or rather, a bit closer to the mortality that is normal for a human > being. KJ writes: As you say, Harry rather accidentally destroyed a memory rather than a live person in order to save a live person. I don't think that anyone had any issue with that and by the time we find out that the diary was also a horcrux, nobody cares. In HBP it is now brought out in the light. It is made plain that these are pieces of a person's soul (stinker or not), nothing is said about destroying them. I think that some readers will be disappointed if Harry actually kills V, but in one way, he is killing Voldemort with each soul piece that he destroys. Nothing is said about the piece of soul being restored to its original part. The indication is that it won't happen that way because Harry's strength is that he has a whole, undamaged soul. There is also nothing said about the sould pieces being released to go where souls go. In fact, Harry is concerned about the necessity of killing Voldemort and refers to it as murder in his own thoughts. I wonder if this will occur to him when he gets the opportunity to destroy a horcrux. > Carol, who wanted to provide a simple, canonical explanation and found > herself with a lengthy interpretation instead KJ Who finds it interesting that JKR has provided information on ghosts, and paintings, and photographs, but has avoided explaining souls. From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Oct 21 22:51:20 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:51:20 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141962 I was wondering about Felix Felicis. Didn't Harry trust it just a little too much? It was just a potion_ okay, it was supposed to make you extremely lucky_ but still, just a potion. Which means, exactly, a certain amount of liquid inside a bottle (more specifically a bottle Harry kept inside a sock, in the bottom of his trunk). If the liquid inside the bottle inside the sock inside the trunk did contain Felix Felicis, still it could be over its 'expiration date', for example (Slughorn giving away valuable potions? Dodgy!). But what if the liquid was not Felix Felicis? When Ron thought he had taken the lucky potion, he believed himself lucky and felt different, just like he had been dosed. So it's fair to assume it would have been the same case with Harry_ he'd feel exactly as Ron 'remembered': "...a great feeling...Like you can't do anything wrong." In fact, we have reason to suspect someone MIGHT have stolen Harry's bottle of FF. The first years! Take a look at the facts in chronological order: - Harry pretends to drop FF in Ron's drink before a Quidditch match. He does so during breakfast, and he's not particularly careful about it because he wants his friends to notice what he has done, leading them to think Ron's been dosed. - Ron gives a grand performance during the Quidditch match in question. - Some time after this, Appariton classes begin and Ron has trouble learning to Apparate. The date for the Apparition test is posted on the common room noticeboard (April 27th); Ron "panicks" on reading this notice. Later on he takes practice lessons in Hogsmeade with the rest of the sixth-years who were going to take the test (during this, Harry attempts to enter the Room of Requirement). - Aragog's burial day arrives. It is April 27th, and Ron and Hermione are taking their Apparition tests that afternoon. - Ron fails his test. What I see in these events, from Ron's POV, is his initially achieving sucess in a difficult "test" (Q. match) and then his failing another difficult "test" (this time, a literal one). In the first "test" he was aided by Harry; in the second he was on his own. Is there anything significant here? Would anyone want Ron to fail? Here enter the first-years. It's the Kreacher parallel: one of the things I hated the most in OotP was hearing Dumbledore say if Sirius had treated Kreacher more kindly, things would have been different. I hate that because it reads as if Sirius deserved to die because he was "mean" to poor little Kreacher ( *beheads Kreacher in her mind* _ sorry about that, I love Sirius). Well, if JKR could do that to Sirius, why not to Ron? We might as well be in for a line as this: "Oh, if Ron had treated those first-years more kindly they wouldn't have stolen Harry's bottle of Felix Felicis just to stop him from giving his best friend a little helping hand, and the whole Sluggish memory thing wouldn't have been ruined." That's exactly what I think has happened. Ron was an ass to the first-years all through HBP. We, the readers, like Ron because we have Harry's POV_ and have had for 6 years. But to the first years, he's not nice at all, and they'd have been outraged if they thought great Harry Potter _ legend, celebrity and Quidditch team Captain _ gave his bosom buddy a few drops of lucky potion just before a match so his friend would look good. I don't think it is far-fetched to suspect these pissed-off kids to come up with a plan against bullying-cheating-Prefect Weasley. Perhaps they thought of this plan when the sign announcing the Apparition test was posted and Ron was distressed about it. Clearly, this would be another opportunity for dishonest, unfair help from best friend Harry Potter and his potion. I propose the first-years stole Harry's Felix Felicis with the intention of preventing him from cheatingly helping out Ron "again", replacing the contents of the bottle with a similar-looking potion. Probably they had the help of an older student for this (McLaggen ::cough:: McLaggen), because it wouldn't be easy to find such a potion. Of course this raises The Big Question: did Harry get the right memory? Ahem there's actually a second question: if he did get he right memory, what went wrong during/after Aragog's burial that Felix Felicis could have prevented (had Harry drunk it)? Dumbledore said the Sluggish memory was the most important of ALL. He told Harry there was nothing as important as retrieving it. So I guess Harry taking a fake unknown potion just before he asked Slughorn for that vital memory is a Huge Thing. By the way I thing the real Sluggish memory is not the one Harry got, but I'll leave this for another post. Lucianam From ginny343 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 02:49:19 2005 From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:49:19 -0000 Subject: What about the strange language? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141963 While rereading part of HBP last night, I came across something that made me wonder. When Harry and DD are headed back to the castle after noticing the dark mark this comment is made: "As they flew over the dark, twisting lane down which they had walked earlier, Harry heard, over the whistling of the night air in his ears, Dumbledore muttering in some strange language again. He THOUGHT he understood why as he felt his broom shudder when they flew over the boundary wall into the grounds: Dumbledore was undoing the enchantments he himself had set around the castle so they could enter at speed." Okay, first, I know DD has done this before because the word "again" did not phase me when I read it, but I cannot find where. If someone could remind me where it is, I would be grateful. But here is the thing that has me wondering. JKR writes "he thought he understood" not "he understood" . . . so that makes me think DD was muttering in some strange language for another reason. And I wonder what it could be? Or, I could just be reading too much into it . . . :) Ginny343 From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Oct 22 03:08:37 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:08:37 -0000 Subject: Why it had to be Sirius In-Reply-To: <20051021125242.89973.qmail@web50001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141964 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Corgi wrote: > > My personal theory concerning Sirius' death, especially after J.K.'s insistance that it was a necessary one, is that Sirius' falling through the veil is forshadowing how Harry ends up killing Voldemort without staining his soul with the killing curse. Maybe it's farfetched, but the way J.K. brings things up it's a possiblity along with the 'he never died' theory a lot of the fanbase has. > > Corgi > I just got an image in my head of Harry standing on the platform of the veil... "ACCIO, VOLDEMORT!!" - Voldemort flies through the air and through the veil. Ha! Allie ("Accio, brain!" - Ron Weasley) From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 04:03:56 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 04:03:56 -0000 Subject: Did Snape owe DD a life debt? Was Re: Suicidal!Snape and the Curse of DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141965 Hi Sarquel! Thanks for playing.. Saraquel: > There are parts of Sydney's post that I really like, but I do agree > with Colebiancardi's point that Snape has not been suicidal for the > past 16 years. Me: I confess that I wouldn't have thought of automatically thought of him as suicidal (or rather, deathwishy) without my theory's need for it. But I must say OFH!Snape instinctively strikes me as far more dischordant with the character we've met so far, who seems more the opposite-- a cut-off-his-nose-to-spite-his-face type. I'll have to put together a bigger post for that though! Sarquel: >But no-one seems to have taken up the possibility > that if, as Sydney suggests and I can really buy, Snape was suicidal > after the prophecy-death of Potters scenario (add into the mix > someone's credible suggestion that Voldemort messed with Snape's > family and it makes it even more probable) then would DD saving his > life mean that Snape had a life debt to DD? > Snape would then be bound by two life debts to people in the Order. That certainly seems plausible-- it could be even more poetic than you think, because in my wilder moments I expand suicidal!Snape back to the werewolf incident. After all, Dumbledore says that Snape never forgave James for SAVING HIS LIFE. If you say that a few times slowly an intersting meaning can emerge.. JKR's promised more about life debts and the circumstances that lead to them, so this could work. Saraquel: > Those 16 years which Snape has spent at Hogwarts, have been spent > unwillingly, IMO. Here we agree... Saraquel: >Not knowing the terms of a life debt, it is hard > to know why Snape stayed at Hogwarts ? whether it was, as he said in > Spinner's End, to escape Azkaban, or whether it was because he was > bound in some way to DD which allowed DD to dictate terms. Me: Life-debts can't be that straightforward though- Pettigrew certainly seems to be successfully ignoring his. Saraquel: >what > he really wants (IMO ? see my previous post) would probably be a > research wizard's post in the Dept of Mysteries ? Me: You know, I thought that too, until I was listening to OoP on tape the other day and there was the bit at St. Mungos. And I was struck by two things: first, the portraits of Healers are described as BRUTAL-LOOKING; and second, they are prominently credited not with cures, but with INVENTING CURSES. JKR suddenly has Snape healing people left and right in HBP, the same book as he shows up as a curse inventor. I don't know if she wants to tie him in to St. Mungos past, present, or future, but it is food for thought. Saraquel: > In my mind, there is definitely a reason why Snape resents DD, which > pushes him to kill him at the end of HBP. Me: But that's redundant under any OFH!Snape scenario-- Snape would DIE if he didn't kill Dumbledore. Not a huge objection, but it's not very tidy. Saraquel: > Now we could consider the possibility that Snape knows that the > curse will get him as soon as he takes the job, but doesn't care, > because if it brings out the worst in him, that's what he has been > wanting to come out for 16 years. All that bitter and burning > resentment being offered an opportunity to express itself. Me: And that leaves us back with idiot!Dumbledore, who has this nakedly resentful, bitter, and OFH!dude, free of the life debt, and yet somehow he's still CERTAIN, he TRUSTS SNAPE ABSOLUTELY. I know people shake their heads and say, oh, that Dumbledore just wants to believe the best in everybody, but there's a huge gaping difference between WANTING to believe the best in someone, and TRUSTING THEM ABSOLUTELY. If Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape was the life- debt, why does he still trust him two hours before the tower scene-- Snape's winning personality(sorry for the all-caps, how do you italics around here?)? Saraquel: > OK, Spinner's End. That OFH!Snape, having just escaped one debt, > would immediately tie himself into another, is a problem. However, > the one he is tying himself in debt to is the wife of the person he > really wants to see in the top job, in this theory. The family he > is pledging himself to protect is the Malfoy family. Maybe he is > not as much interested in what Draco has to do, as interested in > helping his friends survive. Me: But why take a VOW? He could just do his thing without it. If he saved Draco, Lucius would be in debt to him, and he wouldn't have the whole dropping-dead thing if he failed. -- Sydney, who likes her theories overambitious, melodramatic, and DDM!Snapey From eileennicholson at aol.com Sat Oct 22 06:57:00 2005 From: eileennicholson at aol.com (eileen_nicholson) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 06:57:00 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Ceridwen: > In Spinner's End, page 29 US, Bellatrix seems to think the Order showed up much too soon: > "They were joined, as you very well know, by half of the Order before long!" snarled Bellatrix. > > Snape doesn't say anything to this, as Bellatrix moves on to why he > doesn't reveal the location of Order headquarters, and it's just left > lying in the dust. 'Before long' indicates something less than five > hours, to me. > Ceridwen. In my view we have one piece of canon for the timetable here, on how long Harry and his minions spent below ground level before the Order members arrived and JKR disposed of Sirius: 'Come seek us where our voices sound, We cannot sing above the ground, And while you're searching, ponder this: We've taken what you'll sorely miss, An hour long you'll have to look, And to recover what we took, But past an hour - the prospect's black Too late, it's gone, it won't come back.' GoF Ch25 The Egg and the Eye, P402 in UK paperback. A bit obscure, I know, but perhaps an extra straw for the straw man. Eileen From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 07:21:25 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:21:25 -0000 Subject: Snape and the blah-blah what happened on the tower.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141967 This is regarding snape's motives....whether or not DD is truly dead...Where snapes loyalties lie...And, why on earth DD never told Harry how his hand was harmed... 1. The reason why DD never told Harry the story about his hand/arm... Probably because DD is already dying...best to save it until the end of the lessons. It would be too much of a shock/outrage/new adventure for Harry. DD NEEDS Harry to focus on the here and now (defeating Voldemort), and upon his(DD's) particular lessons. 2. Upon that nasty old tower.... Snape said the AK curse...but in reality Snape silently removed the effects of the "stopper in death" potions effects; hence the difference between all the AK's save for one no flash of green light/no cessation of movement etc.). 3. If the stopper of death could be removed by a spell, then perhaps it may have been enhanced by one....(hence the quandry of snape's loyalties are still in the balance)..So, we may not know if Snape told dd about the UV, or if he did, what DD was asking him for on the tower.(my guess would be the saving route....seeing as we KNOW that DD planned to tell Harry a great deal more about everything in general...and Perhaps DD took Harry out with him that night because the only thing that DD thought would redeem Snape in Harry's eyes would be to save him--Dumbledore himself..It would explain the freezing of Harry to bear witness...we know it wasn't for anyones safety, at least, I do not believe so after DD told Harry, "I am not worried. I am with you.") The cannon to support this.. 1. DD told Harry he would explain about his hand later. (yet, did not) DD may be alot of things but he is not a liar. 2. We can see Snape healing Malfoy with spells...after a spell/curse..(we know that DD's hand was the result of a curse-- obtaining/destroying a ring.) 3. We know that Snape did some fast and furious work on the student that touched the necklace.(so I'm speculating the same may have happened after DD's injury to his hand after destroying the horcrux ring...) 4. Harry giving DD that drink from that nasty inferi lake may have removed any positive effects of the stopper in death...hence DD needed Snape! Or, the stopper of death may have been removed by drinking said potion...even more reason for Harry to get Dd to snape. Irregardless for me I do not like Snape not so much because he AK'd Voldemort as much as, he set this whole chain of events in motion by telling moldy-voldie about the prophecy.. Sorry....just think Snape will pay heavily for creating seven books of turmoil...and hundreds dead and thousands if not millions placed in jeopardy due to his actions. (no wonder why he's so bitter to those who would recognize the error of his ways.) The reason for the UV...because seldom is he who starts the turmoil...is ever the one to finish...Snapes mistake..hence the title..."Spinner's End".. The UV is Snapes undoing...(and I still would not be surprised if Wormtail put something in that wine he served!) Also, perhaps because Wormtail told voldie what Snape had done.. I do believe Snape lied and told bella and cissy he knew what the orders were. I also believe that Voldemort Truly wanted Draco to die.(If this is true...then Snape is in big trouble from Voldemort, as is Draco. Also, it means that Snape made a UV to protect Draco...when Voly meant him to die. Is this what Snape realized on the tower? Is this why the look of revulsion? Also, isn't this exactly the type of thing PP would do? Which leads me to ask...did Wormtail spike Bella's, Cissy's and Snape's wine? Was this Wormtail's redemtion? DeeDee From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 22 09:41:23 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:41:23 -0000 Subject: NECESSITY of killing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: a_svirn: > > > As for Draco looking for the biggest bully, why should he? He > is > > > not in the least like Wormtail. > > > > Geoff: > > I believe he is in some ways. > > In Hogwarts, Draco is the king of Slytherin. He has had it > > drummed into him from early years that he is a Malfoy, he is > > privileged and he is expected to achieve great things. He is > > fawned on by his cronies, he enjoys trying to rile those he > > doesn't like and he is smarmy to teachers he likes. But he is > > looking to be with the biggest bully currently on the playground - > > Voldemort. He wants to be a Death Eater and thinks that that will > > be a passport to a life of pleasure and ease. > > a_svirn: > Frankly I don't see from your description and indeed from the books > how come their cases to be similar. Draco does not have to enter > anybody's service to get a "passport to a life of pleasure and > ease". He never knew anything else. Geoff: I said in some ways, not in total. I have a feeling that he has known something less, because I have a feeling, reading between the lines, that Lucius has looked on him as a way of maintaining the family standing and also brainwashing him to think that following Voldemort is the best thing since sliced bread. If he doesn't enter his service, then I think his "passport" will be withdrawn. But overall, I feel we must place our views in the "agree to disagree" category and not get into a "tennis match" over this. From hambtty at triad.rr.com Sat Oct 22 14:47:41 2005 From: hambtty at triad.rr.com (B.G.) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:47:41 -0000 Subject: The Adventure Continues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141970 The Adventure Continues at Lumos 2006! If you are enjoying this Yahoo Group, you will LOVE attending a Harry Potter symposium. Even Chris Rankin (Percy Weasley from the films) was a registered attendee and joined in many of our adventures in Salem, MA. Just two weeks ago, I attended The Witching Hour in Salem, MA and it was more than I could have imagined. HP topics from the musical scores' thematic motifs to roundtables on Book 6 - it was fabulous. Attendees from age 17-60, re-enactments, Prefects giving and taking points, quidditch matches in the mud, movie showings, Death Eaters crashing the concert, shenanigans galore. When it was over, we all felt much like Harry returning to the Dursleys - no one wanted it to end. Many of us are now keeping in touch and planning to meet up in Vegas. We hope you will join us. I am personally inviting you to the gathering in Las Vegas - Lumos 2006. It combines the best of an academic conference and a fan convention in one amazing 4-day symposium. Airfares are reasonable to the city, room rates are $159 for a double, and you will have the time of your life! Surrounded by like-minded folk from all over the world - an experience you'll never forget. Visit the site - over the next 8 months it will be updated regularly as the organizers reveal what wonders will await you as the JW Marriott magically morphs into Hogwarts from July 27-30th. From hambtty at triad.rr.com Sat Oct 22 15:54:11 2005 From: hambtty at triad.rr.com (B.G.) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 15:54:11 -0000 Subject: Snape and the blah-blah what happened on the tower.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141971 > I still would not be surprised if Wormtail put something in that wine he served! > > Also, perhaps because Wormtail told voldie what Snape had done.. > > I do believe Snape lied and told bella and cissy he knew what the > orders were. > > I also believe that Voldemort Truly wanted Draco to die.(If this is > true...then Snape is in big trouble from Voldemort, as is Draco. > Also, it means that Snape made a UV to protect Draco...when Voly > meant him to die. > > Is this what Snape realized on the tower? Is this why the look of > revulsion? Also, isn't this exactly the type of thing PP would do? > > Which leads me to ask...did Wormtail spike Bella's, Cissy's and > Snape's wine? Was this Wormtail's redemtion? > > DeeDee BG writes: I hadn't thought much about PP and the wine until this post. Interesting, what do you propose was in the drink, what did it do? We don't have enough information about any effects the wine had on the sisters. If you are suggesting that the idea of the UV was conjured up from a potion in the wine, I believe that was Narsissa's intention from the start. However, it is uncharacteristic of Snape to enter into such a binding contract without a complete understanding of his commitment. Everyone still ponders - why did DD trust Snape? There must be more than his coming to DD to confess that he told LV about the prophecy - Snape had no place to turn when LV vanished. Did DD ask Snape to enter into a UV with him to protect Harry? We saw how Snape was lured into one with Narsissa, it would be simple for DD to the same especially when Snape was at his most vulnerable. This plot line would place Snape at the prophecy's introduction and its conclusion. Quote from DeeDee, "The reason for the UV...because seldom is he who starts the turmoil...is ever the one to finish...Snapes mistake..hence the title..."Spinner's End".. The UV is Snapes undoing... Book 7 Harry will return to Hogwarts but not as a student. He must use DD's pensieve to continue the lessons DD had planned. Remember all the memories we saw in Book 6 were placed in tiny bottles and DD placed them into the pensieve. Those are still there as far as we know. Harry has much to learn from these memories. More importantly, he must learn how to extract memories - especially his own. He remembers the night his parents were murdered - he heard their voices (Dementors). The Trio will enter that memory and many others to plan their defense against the Dark Arts. Each will gather very different information from the memory. We know they are stronger together than apart. Hermione will bring her academic prowess. She will research history, arithmancy, ancient runes and Horcruxes with help from Krum (you know Durmstrang's library has information on Horcruxes), Ron will use this information to plan strategies, Harry will lead the DA - the New Order. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 06:55:36 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The first-years conspiracy Message-ID: <20051022065536.9110.qmail@web34910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141972 Lucianam73 wrote: "If the liquid inside the bottle inside the sock inside the trunk did contain Felix Felicis, still it could be over its 'expiration date', for example (Slughorn giving away valuable potions? Dodgy!). But what if the liquid was not Felix Felicis? " CH3ed: Well, Hermione would have recognized if it wasn't Felix, wouldn't she? Considering she recognized all the other potions, if anything she would have gone and look up the description of Felix potion after class out of pure curiosity and recognized it if the liquid in the bottle wasn't Felix. Lucianam73 wrote: "Harry pretends to drop FF in Ron's drink before a Quidditch match. He does so during breakfast, and he's not particularly careful about it because he wants his friends to notice what he has done, leading them to think Ron's been dosed." CH3ed again: Harry wanted only Hermione to think he had slipped Ron the potion, but nobody else, or they would have turned him in because using Felix in a sporting competition is illegal. Ron did give a grand performance during the game because he was confident for once (and you are right, the confidence was obtained because Ron thought falsely that he was lucky from being given Felix). It was a good lesson for Ron that he had the ability all along and just needed to believe in himself. I think Harry did drink the real Felix the evening he got Slug's memory. There is no other way to explain his impulses to go down to see Hagrid and to take the roundabout path that took him by the greenhouse where Slug happened to be. And it was a good thing he didn't take it all but left enough in the bottle for Ron, Hermione and Ginny to share the night they fought the DEs because the DEs' curses were missing them left and right. Anyhow, I'm quite interested to know what makes you think Harry didn't get the right memory from Slug. Wouldn't Dumbledore have noticed if it wasn't the right one? CH3ed (whose vision is going blurred trying to read all the posts) From darkcorgi at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 03:33:00 2005 From: darkcorgi at yahoo.com (Corgi) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How Voldemort meets his end WAS: Re: Why it had to be Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051022033300.60918.qmail@web50005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141973 Allie wrote: I just got an image in my head of Harry standing on the platform of the veil... "ACCIO, VOLDEMORT!!" - Voldemort flies through the air and through the veil. Ha! Corgi: OMG I just snorted diet coke all over my keyboard. LOL It's either that or well see a repeat of that scene from the first DADA class in HBP. Harry using a protego and sending ol' Voldie barreling into the Veil. LOL. Have fun, Corgi From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Oct 22 18:25:42 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:25:42 -0000 Subject: Strange Dumbledore( was What about the strange language?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141974 Ginny343: [...] > Okay, first, I know DD has done this before because the word "again" > did not phase me when I read it, but I cannot find where. If > someone could remind me where it is, I would be grateful. > > But here is the thing that has me wondering. JKR writes "he thought > he understood" not "he understood" . . . so that makes me think DD > was muttering in some strange language for another reason. And I > wonder what it could be? Or, I could just be reading too much into houyhnhnm: In the antechamber of the cave: ------------------------------------------- Dumbledore approached the wall of the cave and caressed it with his blackened fingertips, murmuring words in a strange tongue that Harry did not understand. (p. 558, HBP, Am. Ed.) ------------------------------------------- As many times as Harry has simply "understood" and turned out to be wrong, for Rowling to write that "he *thought* he understood" is bound to raise a red flag. It may simply be the truth--that DD was undoing the special enchantments he had set to guard Hogwarts. But with all the mystery surrounding the events of that night, I agree it is suspicious. Unfortunately, I don't have a hypothesis. I think we may learn more about it in book 7, though. As a confirmed DDM!Snape-er I am expecting some kind of explanation for Snape's AKing DD that exonerates Snape. The idea that Snape was a man trapped by fate who was forced to make an odious choice in order to preserve DD's plan satisfies *me* as an adult reader, but I am coming to think that, in a 'children's' series, the explanation for Snape's behavior is going to have to be something a little more concrete. Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the possibility that Dumbledore somehow took on some of Voldemort's essence both in the cave and in the destruction of the first horcrux--intentionally ("KILL ME"). Perhaps no one but Harry can safely destroy Voldemort's horcruxes, but Dumbledore thought it was too much for Harry to accompish, to go after all five alone, so he has been trying to reduce the number that Harry must find and destroy, even at the cost of his own life. That is, he has been practicing some very deep magic that hasn't been explained to us yet, and the muttering on the way back to Hogwart's may be part of that. Some of the evidence for me: 1. The fact that Harry is no longer in danger from LV's Legilimency. (It wouldn't be the first time DD withheld the truth from Harry.)2. Dumbledore's snarkier personality in HBP. (We saw the same thing with Harry in OotP and thought it was just adolescent angst, but found out later that LV was possessing him.) I'm sorry I don't have a coherent theory worked out yet. My job, lately, is syphoning off a lot of brain power I would rather devote to my avocations and I really resent it. :-) From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Oct 22 19:29:49 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:29:49 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141975 Neri: > I start counting from Umbridge taking Harry and Hermione to the > forest, since this was the first time, according to Dumbledore, that > Snape contacted 12GP to find out if Sirius was there (actually a bit > before that, when he walked out of Umbridge's office). We don't know > exactly when that was, but it was during dinnertime (Harry can hear > students talking and "the clatter of cutlery on plates" in the great > hall, see the beginning of chapter 33) and we also know it was well > before sunset (the sun was "falling towards the tops of the trees", > also beginning of chapter 33). It seems 7:00 to 8:00pm (not using > DST) would be reasonable time estimations. houyhnhnm: There is no way to determine the sun's altitude from the fact that the sun appeared to be "falling towards the tops of the trees" from the high vantage point of the castle steps. From the top of the castle steps, the tops of the trees could appear to barely reach above the horizon. Neri: > I end the counting with the Order members arriving at the MoM. Again > we don't know exactly when that happened, but if you read the > description in the book it seems impossible that the whole DEs vs > Order battle and the DD vs LV battle together took more than an > hour, houyhnhnm: There are six action sequences from the time Harry and Hermione leave the castle with Umbridge to the time Harry grabs the portkey back to Hogwarts. 1. The walk into the forest, encounter with the centaurs, arrival of Grawp, and appearance of the thestrals. 2. The flight to London. 3. The search for the Hall of Prophecy. 5. TeamHarry's battle with the Death Eaters. 6. The Order's battle with the Death Eater's. The first is the only one for which there is certain evidence. It lasted from the time the school was eating the evening meal to sunset. Could be one-two hours; we don't know when they eat dinner. But from the description of what happened, it doesn't sound like it took that long. That's why I distrust the description of the action as a guage of the amount of time passing in the other sequences. The flight on the thestrals seems like it would take a long time, yet between "On they flew through the gathering darkness;..." and a paragraph later, "Harry's head was pointing downward.", there is only "He had lost all sense of how far they come; ..." to give any sense of how much time was passing. The dinnertime to sunset to beginning of civil twilight does give 5-6 hours or more. But the action that is supposed to take place doesn't seem to add up to that amount of time, which is why I think it is just Rowling being inexact with figures again, and, therefore, not significant. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 19:57:43 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 19:57:43 -0000 Subject: Strange Dumbledore, strange language, strange possibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141976 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Ginny343: > > [...] > > ... I know ... the word "again" did not phase me when I read it, > > but I cannot find where. ... > > > > ... JKR writes "he thought he understood" not "he understood" ... > > so that makes me think DD was muttering in some strange language > > for another reason. ... > > houyhnhnm: > > In the antechamber of the cave: > -...edited... > > As many times as Harry has simply "understood" and turned out to > be wrong, for Rowling to write that "he *thought* he understood" > is bound to raise a red flag. ...I agree it is suspicious. > bboyminn: I think it is simply expressing a degree of uncertainty on Harry's part. It's the difference between 'I think Dumbledore was removing the enchantments', which in and of itself expresses a small element of doubt, and 'I think Dumbledore was maybe removing the enchantments', which clearly expresses a larger more substantial element of doubt. In a sense, Harry is not expressing a preceived fact, but a best guess, and he does so well aware that it is nothing more than a guess. > houyhnhnm: > ... As a confirmed DDM!Snape-er .... The idea that Snape was a > man trapped by fate who was forced to make an odious choice in > order to preserve DD's plan satisfies *me* as an adult reader, > but I am coming to think that, in a 'children's' series, the > explanation for Snape's behavior is going to have to be something > a little more concrete. > bboyminn: Two points here. First, I'm not buying any grand conspiracy theories between Dumbledore and Snape. I'm more inclined to believe it was a spur of the moment thing at the top of the tower. Afteral, to assume they could plan that unlikely event, is as ridiculous as assuming they they could plan the very unlikely and illogical death of Sirus (referring to the circumstance, not the actual death). Dumbledore accepted his fate, Snape knew that there was a cause and a goal greater than the moment, and they both accepted that they were and would be condemned. As to people's continued references to this as a children's series, that is simply not true. JKR never wrote this with a target audience, or if there was a target audience, it was 'General' not children. The publishers marketed the books to children, but that was a purely commercial decision, thought admittedly a wise one, but JKR herself said that she wrote these books for herself. If other people liked them that was fine, but she was telling the story that had to be told, and telling it the way it had to be told, and let the chips fall where they may. So, the series is written for 'general' audiences which includes kids, but doesn't necessarily target them. As a side note: "Ender's Game" and "Ender's Shadow" by Orson Scott Card are books about children that were never targeted to children; they were targeted to 'general' science fiction audiences. Though, much like Harry Potter, they have been picked up and greatly enjoyed by young readers. "Ender's Game" was origianlly published in 1985 and only recently has been specifically targeted to younger readers (with new covers that appeal to young readers). > houyhnhnm: > ... I ... think... ...that Dumbledore ... took on some of > Voldemort's essence both in the cave and in the destruction > of the first horcrux--intentionally.... Perhaps no one but > Harry can safely destroy Voldemort's horcruxes, but Dumbledore > thought ... to go after all five alone, ... trying to reduce > the number that Harry must find ..., even at the cost of his > own life. That is, he has been practicing some very deep magic > that hasn't been explained to us yet, and the muttering on the > way back to Hogwart's may be part of that. > > Some of the evidence for me: > 1. The fact that Harry is no longer in danger from LV's Legilimency. > ... > 2. Dumbledore's snarkier personality in HBP. ... > > ... > > houyhnhnm bboyminn: First, I acknowledge that you are merely speculating on possibilities, not proposing a theory, but even so... I'm having trouble buying it. On the issue of languages, the most common European language of magic would be, logically, Latin; but that is certainly not the only ancient dead language. Sanscrit and Aramaic come to mind. It is unreasonable to think the the entire world bases its magic on the ancient language of Latin. Certainly other countries must us more regional ancient languages. I seriously doubt that Swahili or Zulu have their foundations in Latin, yet in the HP world, those cultures most certainly have magic. So, Dumbledore is over 150 years old, he has been a few places and seen a few things. Certainly he has studing the magical language of other cultures, and was either using magic from those language bases or was using a Euro-based language even more ancient than Latin. Now back to your theory/speculation, while I don't really like the idea, I can see some foundation for it. Perhaps, only the owner of the soul-piece can encapsulate, and extension, release the soul from its 'body' without risking injury or death. If we extend this a step farther and accept the unlikely concept that Harry has a piece of Voldemort's soul inside him, then it would seem that Harry might be safe if he tried to release a soul-piece from the Horcrux. Though, I can't believe that Dumbledore would take this risk knowingly. If he did risk his own life releasing a soul-piece, then it was because he wasn't aware of that risk. Perhaps, after being nearly killed by the release of the soul-piece from the Ring (something that we are not actually sure of), he thought to capture the Locket and have Harry release the soul-piece to verify that Harry would be unharmed. Of course, the 'Death Eater's at Hogwart' plot put an end to that plan. Although, I really can't accept any theory that says Dumbledore was planning to die in the immediate future. He was making plans, he was training Harry, he had important tasks to accomplish, he was putting off until later important information and discussions that were vital to Harry. No, I'm sticking with my belief that Dumbledore was an unfortunate casualty of war. But, again, part of this speculation of yours does have some foundation. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From ginny343 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 20:05:13 2005 From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:05:13 -0000 Subject: DD - Snape UV? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "B.G." wrote: > > Everyone still ponders - why did DD trust Snape? There must be more > than his coming to DD to confess that he told LV about the prophecy - > Snape had no place to turn when LV vanished. Did DD ask Snape to > enter into a UV with him to protect Harry? Ginny343: I don't know if DD asking Snape to entering into a UV with him to protect Harry has been proposed before, but I think you might be on to something! Most of the magic presented in the books comes up more than once. And it certainly does seem from the very first book that Snape, while cruel to Harry, does all he can to protect him from harm. This would explain why DD feels he can trust Snape completely. It makes a lot of sense, but it lessens in my mind the idea of Snape's redemption - as his better actions will have only been because of the UV. And I am really hoping somehow Snape will turn out *not-so-bad* BG: > Book 7 > Harry will return to Hogwarts but not as a student. He must use > DD's pensieve to continue the lessons DD had planned. Remember all > the memories we saw in Book 6 were placed in tiny bottles and DD > placed them into the pensieve. Those are still there as far as we > know. Harry has much to learn from these memories. More > importantly, he must learn how to extract memories - especially his > own. He remembers the night his parents were murdered - he heard > their voices (Dementors). The Trio will enter that memory and many > others to plan their defense against the Dark Arts. Each will > gather very different information from the memory. We know they are > stronger together than apart. Hermione will bring her academic > prowess. She will research history, arithmancy, ancient runes and > Horcruxes with help from Krum (you know Durmstrang's library has > information on Horcruxes), Ron will use this information to plan > strategies, Harry will lead the DA - the New Order. > Ginny343 I was under the impression that DD was mostly using the pensieve to show Harry all he knew about Voldemort's life - and I think he showed him all he had. I'm not sure if there were more memories he had planned to show Harry. I think you are right about Harry using the pensieve to relive the memories of his parents' deaths. And there might be other memories that DD took out of his mind before the journey to the cave, just in case something happened to him. I like the idea that Ron and Hermione will accompany him on the journeys into the pensieve. At this point though, I don't think Harry knows how to extract his own memories or use the pensieve alone. So, someone else is going to have to step-up to help him out. I am also a little unsure of how he will get to the pensieve. He wasn't very helpful with McGonagall at the end of HBP . . . that makes me wonder if she might be less than helpful to him. Nicely tied together idea about Krum and the Durmstrang's libray. And I really like the idea of the DA becoming the *New Order*. Ginny343 From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 21:00:25 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:00:25 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141978 > Carol responds: > As you may know if you've ever attempted to write fiction, it's very > difficult to make the actions of two sets of characters match up > within the same time frame. Neri: Yep, much easier to match up the actions of two sets of the *same* characters, before and after a time travel loop. Now *that* would be a piece of cake . Not to mention factoring in the separate actions of Dumbledore, Hagrid, Ron, Sirius, Lupin, Snape, Wormtail, Crookshanks, Fudge and the dementors, all matching perfectly from both ends of the time loop. And interestingly the PoA climax takes place at the same hours and in the same time of the year as the OotP climax. But maybe JKR suffered an altheimer case in the three years between PoA and OotP. > Carol: > With regard to Snape, we have the word of two characters on opposite > ends of the evil spectrum (Dumbledore and Bellatrix) that the Order > arrived fairly soon after the DEs attacked Harry and his friends. (We > can estimate the time frame of the battle sequence for ourselves at > perhaps half an hour.) Neri: Actually I pretty much agree with this estimation. The problem is that it doesn't really matter for estimating the time of the Order's arrival, it will just stretch the travel time from Scotland to London (which is the single biggest unknown in the timeline) to compensate, with the time of taking off from the forest canonically fixed at sunset. What *does* matter is how much took the battle with the Order and Dumbledore, even though this was *after* the Order arrived, because when that is finished Harry is transported to Dumbledore's office and sees the first light of dawn in the east, which is our next canon time point. It should be about 2:00am (not using DST), so if you estimate how much took the battle between the Order and the DEs plus the battle between Dumbledore and Voldy, you can conclude when the Order arrived. Regardless of estimations and JKR's math abilities, it is almost impossible to imagine it happening before midnight. > Carol: In any case, if DD believed that Snape had > deliberately delayed or behaved inappropriately, he would not have the > deep and often-stated trust in him that we see in HBP. > Neri: HBP suggests a possibility that Dumbledore had somewhat of a blind spot regarding Snape. And it doesn't look like Dumbledore had time to chart the timeline before his talk with Harry in his office. He surely never asks Harry to give his version of the events and their timing (which frankly I, in Harry's place, would have found somewhat insulting). > Carol: > Also, you can't count Harry breaking into Umbridge's office as part of > the timeline. That occurs before he communicates to Snape what he > thinks is happening. Snape leaves Umbridge's office and immediately > contacts Sirius--which also constitutes contacting the Order since at > least five other members are present at GP. He presumably tells them > what has happened and establishes that Black is not in danger. > Neri: Canon only tells us that he found out Sirius is in 12GP. We don't know how much he told them the first time around. Canon also tells us that this happened during dinnertime at Hogwarts. The question is, can you see Sirius knowing Umbridge holds Harry while he's under a mind attack, and waiting quietly until midnight for further information from Snape, of all people? Do you see the paranoid Moody hearing about this and not checking on the guard in the Ministry, just to be on the safe side? And did five Order members all forgot there are thestrals in the forest, when Dumbledore sometimes uses them for transportation? Or do they all just disregard the possibility that Harry would come across somebody's broom, or reach Hogsmead and use someone's fireplace to get to the DoM? After the attack on Arthur? After the attacks on Podmor and Bode? When they already know Harry stopped getting Occlumency lessons? When they know just the day before that Umbridge used Minstry aurors to attack Hagrid and put McGonagall in St. Mungo's? Credibility is stretched *very* thin here. > Carol: > He can't go back to Harry with this information. He's been kicked out > of her office. But somehow he finds out that Harry has gone to the > Forbidden Forest (presumably he also knows about Hermione and > Umbridge). His source of information can't be Neville and company, as > they'd have mentioned this to Harry. I'm assuming that he set Filch to > watch the doors to see if Harry and his friends ran out of them. Neri: No need to get that complicated. Snape goes out of Umbridge's office and sends a patronus to 12GP to inquire if Sirius is there. Since the patronus probably doesn't return immediately, Snape doesn't know yet if this is a true situation or a false alarm. At this point his obvious first priority is to keep an eye on Harry ? there isn't much else that he can or needs to do. He could simply wait around the corner to see what Umbridge will do. He could see her taking Harry and Hermione, follow them from a safe distance to see that they go to the Forest. At that point he'd know he is the highest authority left in the castle and Umbridge's office is wide open. Once he ferries the Slyths outside (no need to investigate them) he has immediate communication with 12GP and probably can even summon immediate enforcements, the way McGonagall's fire in HBP was set to bring back Harry, Ron and Ginny after Christmas (if this isn't possible the enforcement can still apparate just outside the gates. Might actually be faster to reach the forest from there). Sirius would be an ideal candidate: knows the Forbidden Forest very well, can run very fast as a dog while sniffing Harry's tracks, and Umbridge doesn't know about his disguise. Tonks and Lupin would be good choices too, as their service at Hogwarts during HBP demonstrates. But obviously this didn't happen. The question is, where and who was the weak link? > Carol: Filch > reporting that Umbridge was out of the building would leave Snape free > to return to Umbridge's office, sort out the various hexes placed on > the Slytherins, and get the story of what had happened. At this point > he apparently reports to Dumbledore, who knows that Snape intended to > go into the forest to search for them. Neri: At no point at that night Snape contacted Dumbledore. Dumbledore was not available, and Snape's second call was again to GP12. And if they went "at once" to the DoM as Dumbledore says they did, it means he contacted them very late, most probably around midnight. > Carol: Then, we must assume, he goes > into the forest and does not find them. He knows that Harry can't > apparate and that he was not carrying a broom when he ran out with > Umbridge. Nevertheless, he somehow puts two and two together as only > snape can and determines that Harry and friends have actually gone to > the MoM. He doesn't know they've done so or how long it will take to > get there. He then returns to his office (or Umbridge's to use the > fireplace so he can talk with them directly). He tells them what he > knows or has deduced and tells Black to remain behind because > Dumbledore is coming--which means that he has also contacted > Dumbledore before contacting the Order. > Neri: I think you got the order of events wrong. Dumbledore indeed says that "it was he [Snape] who deduced where you had gone when you did not return from the forest". But three pages before that he also says that "when, however, you did not return from your trip into the forest with Dolores Umbridge, Professor Snape grew worried that you still believed Sirius to be a captive of Lord Voldemort's. He altered certain Order members at once." Then Dumbledore describes the Order members deciding to go "at once" to the DoM and Snape requesting Sirius would stay behind. Then Dumbledore adds: "in the meantime he, Professor Snape, intended to search the forest for you". My interpretation of this is that Snape intended to search the forest *after* he contacted the Order the second time and told them he thinks Harry went to the DoM. If he indeed searched the forest at all it must have been after he himself deduced that Harry was no longer there. And all this must have happened around midnight. > Carol: > Unless you can explain to me how Snape knew that Harry had gone into > the forest without having someone report the information to him (and > obtaining more details from his own students, whom he was bound by his > duty as a teacher and their HoH to unhex) and how DD could know to go > to the Order without Snape's having contacted him (probably twice), I > see no other explanation for Snape's side of the action. Neri: Dumbledore was "due to headquarters at any minute" which is why Snape requested Sirius to wait there for him. If Snape contacted Dumbledore before, why didn't Dumbledore aparate to the DoM straight away and arrived there before the Order members, instead of going first to 12GP and examining Kreacher while the Order members get butchered in the DoM? And Madam Pomfrey could unhex the Slyths. Snape had more important things to do that night. Regarding how Snape knew Harry went to the forest ? see my previous answers. > > Carol, who will regard the "missing five hours" as canonical only when > JKR herself acknowledges its existence > Neri: As I wrote before, it is canon that several hours passed from dinnertime, when Harry first gives his message to Snape, until the Order members arrive at the DoM, most probably after midnight. What Snape and the rest of the Order members did during that time is indeed left very vague. I'd say much *too* vague. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 21:05:04 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:05:04 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"peaceful_expression"=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141979 > houyhnhnm: > > There is no way to determine the sun's altitude from the fact that the > sun appeared to be "falling towards the tops of the trees" from the > high vantage point of the castle steps. From the top of the castle > steps, the tops of the trees could appear to barely reach above the > horizon. > Neri: Why do you believe the castle steps are high above the forest? Anyway, they are not on the castle steps. They're on the grounds walking towards the forest: "The sun was falling towards the tops of the trees in the Forbidden Forest now as Hermione marched purposefully across the grass, Umbridge Jogging to keep up." (Chapter 33). In any case this is splitting hairs. If we stretch everything to save Snape's name we might conclude it was only 3.5 hours. > houyhnhnm: > > The dinnertime to sunset to beginning of civil twilight does give 5-6 > hours or more. But the action that is supposed to take place doesn't > seem to add up to that amount of time, which is why I think it is just > Rowling being inexact with figures again, and, therefore, not > significant. > Neri: The author doesn't have to describe every small and irrelevant event, or the book would have been twice as long and very boring. Especially when nothing much is happening, such as when hiking through the forest or flying in the dark, the author wouldn't describe everything, which would make these periods appear shorter than they're supposed to be. For example, read again chapter 21 in the climax of PoA. Except for two short action parts it's mostly waiting. Just from reading what's happening I'd estimate an hour, maybe an hour and a half. Yet it canonically takes three hours, from 9:00 to midnight. The question is: in order to coordinate the actions of several different sets of characters, it is almost unbelievable the JKR didn't have a table in her notebook showing what and when everyone did everything. The question is what times are noted in this notebook. And JKR is quite purposeful regarding the time descriptions. Harry's going to the forest is described both by dinnertime and the sun's position. The sunset is described several times in the end of chapter 33 and the beginning if chapter 34. The growing darkness is noted in chapter 34. The first light of dawn in the east is described several times in chapter 37. There's nothing casual or inexact about it. Neri From ShylahM at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 23:16:58 2005 From: ShylahM at gmail.com (kiroo4) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:16:58 -0000 Subject: HBP Character Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141980 Having read as much as I can since posting began after the book release, I don't recall too much on this character. McLaggan In HBP he's the only character that really raises my warning flags. For instance, he's arrogant, expects favouritism, takes things badly when they don't go his way, eg - not getting favoritism. Always blowing his own horn. Thinks he's always right and likes being in control. Hence his taking over of Quidditch when he got on the team for a bit. I get the general feeling that he'll be very useful for those who hold out the power incentive and who are ready and willing to do a bit of ego stroking. He's well placed to deliver the surprise shock to Harry, who at this stage, is still focused on Slytherin as the main threat. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 22 23:23:48 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:23:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and the blah-blah what happened on the tower.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141981 Doddiemoe wrote: > Irregardless for me I do not like Snape not so much because he AK'd > Voldemort as much as, he set this whole chain of events in motion by > telling moldy-voldie about the prophecy.. > > Sorry....just think Snape will pay heavily for creating seven books > of turmoil...and hundreds dead and thousands if not millions placed > in jeopardy due to his actions. (no wonder why he's so bitter to > those who would recognize the error of his ways.) Carol responds: I think you mean "AK'd Dumbledore"? That aside, I don't think we can blame everything that Voldemort has done on Snape. In fact, even setting aside his apparent remorse for the consequences of reporting the partial Prophecy to Voldemort, his spying "at great personal risk" before teaching at Hogwarts, and his aiding Dumbledore in dealing with Quirrell and Crouch!Moody, to name only a few examples, if we look at the consequences of the Prophecy, only James and Lily were killed because of it. Voldemort himself was vaporized. So rather than being responsible for "hundreds dead and millions placed in jeopardy," Snape is partially responsible (along with Wormtail and, of course, Voldemort himself) for only two. After that, the WW had an eleven-year respite thanks to the events at Godric's Hollow. At that point, Voldemort tried to return by possessing Quirrell, who was thwarted in part by Snape. Only one person died, Quirrell himself, and he was a bad guy. There are no deaths in CoS and no new ones in PoA, only reports of old ones for which Peter Pettigrew was responsible--including the actual betrayal of the Potters, who were his friends. Pettigrew's release enables *him* to go after Vapor!mort and restore him. PP kidnaps Bertha Jorkins and is at least partially responsible for her death; helps to kidnap and Imperio the real Moody and release Barty Jr. to take his place, indirectly enabling Barty to kill his own father; and AKs Cedric Diggory. I can see blaming *Wormtail* as well as Voldemort for all of these crimes, but Snape had no hand in them. And in OoP, he tells Sirius Black to stay at headquarters because Dumbledore is on his way. It's no fault of Snape's that Black didn't listen or that Bellatrix sent him through the veil. It's possible that Snape is telling the truth about passing information on Emmeline Vance (though he carefully makes sure that Bellatrix is no longer in the Dark Lord's confidence before telling her so), and whether or not there are extenuating circumstances, he did cast the spell that sent Dumbledore over the battlements of the astronomy tower. But Bellatrix's words about his "usual slithering out of action" suggest that he has done very little of the kinds of dirty work she herself is so often involved in. And Snape's crimes, at least until HBP, consist chiefly of passing on a single piece of information to his master that he could not possibly have interpreted as Voldemort did--a crime for which he has been trying to atone for sixteen years. In comparison with Wormtail's crimes, his (until HBP) are barely worth noticing. It was Wormtail who betrayed the Potters by revealing their whereabouts to Voldemort, and Wormtail who restored Voldemort to his body. If we're going to blame anyone besides Voldemort for Voldemort's crimes at Godric's Hollow and later, it should be Wormtail, not Snape. But Voldemort himself is *solely* to blame for the murders he committed to create his Horcruxes and *primarily* to blame for the murders and other crimes he ordered the Death Eaters to commit in VW1 and now in VW2. He murdered his own father and grandparents, among others, before Severus Snape was even born. To shift the blame for Voldemort's actions to Snape, or even to Wormtail, is to mistake the primary villain of the HP books, Tom Riddle aka Lord Voldemort, without whom MWPP, Lily Potter, Sirius and Regulus Black, Cedric Diggory, and Albus Dumbledore (and many others) would still be alive and the Longbottoms would still be sane. Carol From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Oct 23 00:34:14 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:34:14 EDT Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20[HPforGrownups]=20Interpretation=20(was=20Re:=20?= =?UTF-8?Q?Dumbledore's=20"=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93peaceful=20express...?= Message-ID: <9.4eeb969d.308c3486@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141982 In a message dated 10/22/2005 5:01:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nkafkafi at yahoo.com writes: (which is the single biggest unknown in the timeline) to compensate, with the time of taking off from the forest canonically fixed at sunset. ---------------------- Sherrie here: According to the tables I just checked, sunset in mid- to late June of 1996 was just after 10:00 PM (approximately 10:07, if you want to be precise). If the "earliest light of day" is around 2:00 AM (which makes some sense, since sunrise is listed around 4:32 AM), that leaves a total of around four hours for the full sequence of events, from the trip into the woods to the return to Dumbledore's office (and, IIRC, at least some portion of the conversation between Harry & Dumbledore). Into that time frame, we squeeze the trip into the forest, the "discussion" with the centaurs, the flight on the thestrals, the trip down to the DoM, exploration of the Brain Room, the Veil Chamber & the Time Room, searching the Prophecy Room, the running battle with the Death Eaters, the escape from the DoM, Dumbledore's duel with Voldemort, the arrival of Fudge & Co. in the lobby, and Dumbledore's discussion with Fudge while Harry trashed his office. (I don't have my books with me, so again it's IIRC, but I don't think Harry noticed the light in the sky until Dumbledore had already returned.) Pretty busy four hours. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sat Oct 22 23:00:59 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 23:00:59 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: <20051022065536.9110.qmail@web34910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141983 Lucianam73 wrote: > If the liquid inside the bottle inside the sock inside the trunk > did contain Felix Felicis, still it could be over its 'expiration > date', for example (Slughorn giving away valuable potions? Dodgy!). > But what if the liquid was not Felix Felicis? CH3ed: > Well, Hermione would have recognized if it wasn't Felix, wouldn't > she? Considering she recognized all the other potions, if anything > she would have gone and look up the description of Felix potion > after class out of pure curiosity and recognized it if the liquid > in the bottle wasn't Felix. Lucianam: Yes, Hermione recognized the potion Slughorn showed them as FF (was it really??? I don't trust Slughorn anyway). But when Harry drinks it, it's in a bottle, not in a cauldron 'splashing about merrily' with 'large drops' 'leaping above it surface'. If the potion also had the color of 'molten gold', why would Hermione suspect it? I go further, it needn't be exactly the same color as FF, yellow might have sufficed. When Harry drunk it, it was dusk or near dusk, and Hermione held the bottle up to the light to check it; how strong was that light, was it candlelight, wand light, gas light?? And just after that they crack a joke about it, they do not really suspect the potion might not be FF. Lucianam73 wrote: > Harry pretends to drop FF in Ron's drink before a Quidditch match. > He does so during breakfast, and he's not particularly careful > about it because he wants his friends to notice what he has done, > leading them to think Ron's been dosed. CH3ed again: > Harry wanted only Hermione to think he had slipped Ron the potion, > but nobody else, or they would have turned him in because using > Felix in a sporting competition is illegal. Lucianam: Agreed. But if Hermione saw him, others could have as well. Even if Harry only meant her to see it. About the wrong memory, well, since the first time I read Chapter Sluggish Memory I thought the real memory was the blurry one (or rather, the foggy one). It fits with R.A.B., too. The boy Slughorn is shouting with could be Regulus, for example. It doesn't make sense he'd shout with Tom Riddle, because we know from Dumbledore's own mouth that Tom was quite the good student at Hogwarts. He was Head Boy, very intelligent, teachers sympathised with him. I'll just go post it now, since it's a separate matter (not entirely separate, but still). Lucianam From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 02:55:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 02:55:32 -0000 Subject: Snape 's story to Bella in Spinner's End WAS:Re: Snape and the blah-blah...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141984 Carol: > It's possible that Snape is telling the truth about passing > information on Emmeline Vance (though he carefully makes sure that > Bellatrix is no longer in the Dark Lord's confidence before telling > her so), and whether or not there are extenuating circumstances, he > did cast the spell that sent Dumbledore over the battlements of the > astronomy tower. But Bellatrix's words about his "usual slithering out > of action" suggest that he has done very little of the kinds of dirty > work she herself is so often involved in. Alla: I am snipping almost your whole post and I don't even think that I am directly responding to this quote, but since you are talking about Snape's story in Spinner's End, it seemed the most appropriate place to ask my question, which I should probably hold off till Monday, but hopefully Potioncat will forgive me. :-) I am talking about whether Snape was telling the truth in general in his story to Bella. Now as you probably know I think that the interpretation that everything that he WAS talking about was the truth has at least an equal support to "Snape's lying to Bella" intepretation. So, I am quite sure that one of the arguments which was raised against Snape being truthful with Bella in the past was that some of the pieces of the story told by Snappe contradicts with what we as readers already know happened. In particular, some people argued ( I am not 100% sure, but sure enough) that since Snape tells Bella that Dumbledore sustained his injury in Department of Mysteries , instead of when he went Horcrux hunting , it means that Snape is defininetly lying to Bella. I don't remember Carol, whether you raised this argument or not, as I said your post just seemed appropriate place to ask this question. So, after rereading the chapter, it does not seem to me that this is what Snape is saying. Here is what he is saying: I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. The Duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were. But through all these years, he has never stopped trusting Severus Snape, and therein lies my great value to the Dark Lord. - p.31 Am I missing something here? Is there something in this quote that we know for sure to be a lie? I mean, it is a very reasonable assumption that duel with Voldie shook Dumbledore, no? Snape does not say that Dumbledore was injured in DoM, which we know did not happened, but we did not know how he felt, in fact, I think he WAS shooked pretty badly if for nothing else, but because Harry almost died. After all Snape does not specify what kind of "shook up" Albus sustained AND then he says that Dumbledore since sustained a serious injury, which is also true. Snape does not specify WHERE Dumbledore sustained such injury, but it could be because he himself has no clue, right? I think Dumbledore could have asked Snape to heal him without specifying what caused the injury. I don't see where Snape lies in this quote, he may omit things, sure, but lying? I don't know about that. Help, please? JMO, Alla From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 23 03:02:30 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 03:02:30 -0000 Subject: Hagrid trusting Snape/Wizarding Food/the UV/the Dante/did the 1st years hate Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141985 Elyse wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141834 : << It seems, judging from his reaction, that Hagrid was the only one who really accepted DD's second-hand trust. >> Maybe Hagrid also had some first-hand evidence of what side Snape was on. Deborah wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141837 : << Bechamel flows from her wand into the chicken and ham pie; origins of sauce, chicken, ham and pie crust unknown, origins of potatoes ditto. >> Conjured bechamel that vanishes again in a couple of hours would save calories. Canon (IIRC CoS) shows us that Molly raises chickens at The Burrow. The movie added pigs to their livestock; I would have thought a milk cow would be more likely than pigs. I doubt they grow their own wheat, but think it likely they grow their own potatoes, as well as seasonal vegetables. << My feeling is that the WW probably operates a system analogous to Internet shopping ? you make your order, and the delivery takes place, perhaps by Floo if wands are an inconvenient size and shape, or the man on the white broomstick delivers; payment is of course by direct transfer. >> You may be right, as Owl Order is canonical, but my mind's eye envisions Molly and other homemakers *going* shopping, to a series of little old-fashioned shops (butcher, baker, greengrocer, etc) and perhaps to some kind of Farmer's Market, maybe the local one in the Muggle village, or a wizarding one held in or near Diagon Alley. I have always wondered if there are wizarding farmers supplying produce to wizarding greengrocers and wheat to wizarding millers, or at what stage are the products of Muggle farmers, Muggle millers, Muggle international importers, Muggle wholesalers, Muggle supermarkets, imported into the wizarding world. And if they buy Muggle produce, do they care about pesticides and artificial fertilizers and so on? IMHO Sugar would have to be imported, conjured, or transfigured from something else, as sugarcane doesn't grow in Britain. However, if Florean Fortescue made his ice cream by magic, he could make it from shed snake-skins, shiny pebbles, and pencil shavings instead of cream, sugar, fruit, and ice for all we know. We've heard of Agatha Timms's eel farm, but the eels could be for potion ingredients rather than for food. SSSusan wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141849 : << Was it out of the mistaken belief that the task in question was to kill *Harry*? [Nah, probably have to nix this one, given Snape's remark that if Draco succeeded in the task, it would allow him (Snape) to remain at Hogwarts a little longer. How would killing Harry be related to that?] >> I'm one of the silly readers who thought that the 'task' was to kill Harry, and of course, if Draco killed Harry so that Snape didn't have to, Snape wouldn't have been fired from Hogwarts for killing a student, not to mention being wanted for murder by the Ministry. AyanEva wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141888 : << However, I did get to the spot right before where I think the "Barque of the Dante" painting comes in. It's the souls of the damned in the water bit and the demon oarsman beating the crap out of people with his oar because they're not moving fast enough. Or something like that. >> You mean, a painting called The Barque of the Dante doesn't depict the few wretched survivors of the wreck of a ship name Dante? Lucianam wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141962 : << I don't think it is far-fetched to suspect these pissed-off kids to come up with a plan against bullying-cheating-Prefect Weasley. >> What is the evidence that the first years were pissed off or perceived Ron as bullying them? From memory, he called out: "Hey, midgets, this way" and Hermione scolded him: "You can't call them midgets!" and then Hermione confiscated a Fanged Frisbee and Ron tried to take it from her for himself. I think Ron was quite wrong in the second case: that's *theft*; if he took the Fanged Frisbee from Hermione, he should give it back to its owner with a warning about hiding it better. HOWEVER, my feeling was that the first-years loved him; being called 'midgets' made them feel like he was their real life big brother, and him taking the Fanged Frisbee made them real that he had the right priorities in life. I imagine that very few of the young-uns liked Prefect Hermione, only exceptionally brainy ones to whom she might lend books, or weepingly homesick ones to whom she would get all maternal. Btw, loves & kisses to all on the SAD DENIAL. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Oct 23 03:05:26 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 03:05:26 -0000 Subject: Strange Dumbledore, strange language, strange possibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141986 bboyminn: > Two points here. First, I'm not buying any grand > conspiracy theories between Dumbledore and Snape. I'm > more inclined to believe it was a spur of the moment > thing at the top of the tower. Afteral, to assume they > could plan that unlikely event, is as ridiculous as > assuming they could plan the very unlikely and illogical > death of Sirus (referring to the circumstance, not the > actual death). Dumbledore accepted his fate, Snape knew > that there was a cause and a goal greater than the moment, > and they both accepted that they were and would be condemned. > As to people's continued references to this as a children's > series, that is simply not true. JKR never wrote this with a > target audience, or if there was a target audience, it was > 'General' not children. The publishers marketed the books > to children, but that was a purely commercial decision, > thought admittedly a wise one, but JKR herself said that > she wrote these books for herself. If other people liked > them that was fine, but she was telling the story that had > to be told, and telling it the way it had to be told, and let the > chips fall where they may. So, the series is written for 'general' > audiences which includes kids, but doesn't necessarily target them. houyhnhnm: Oh, I agree. I'm just hedging my bets. I think both Snape and Dumbledore, either together or separately (I'm not partisan on that score) were trying to prevent such a scene from occuring all year. Then, for whatever reason--coincidence, fate, karma (I'm partial to the DADA curse theory myself)--Snape found himself in a situation where he had no choice, if he really is DDM, but to kill Dumbledore. By Dumbledore's plan, I meant the plan to preserve the life of Harry Potter so that he could defeat the Dark Lord. But the argument has been made lately on this list, that one or another interpretation can't be right because the resolution of the plot has to be something that will resonate with a twelve-year-old. I don't necessarily agree; I didn't participate in that thread. But it's been in the back of my mind. What if they are right? Ginny343's post got my mind off on a tangent. What kind of plot contrivance *would* satisfy this hypothetical twelve-year-old audience and satisfy my adult taste at the same time. It couldn't be a "plan" for DD to have himself killed so Snape can get in tighter with Voldemort. That's just too revolting. But a Dumbledore who, knowing his time was coming to an end anyway, decided to take a couple of Voldie's soul pieces with him. That works for me. And I think it would work for the concrete operational contingent as well. As for the Potter series not really being kids' books, it's not the first time an adult work has been marketed as children's literature. I had Junior Classics Illustrated editions of _Alice in Wonderland_ and _Gulliver's Travels_ as a child, and neither of those are really children's books (especially the latter). From rozcheeks at adelphia.net Sun Oct 23 01:02:45 2005 From: rozcheeks at adelphia.net (aussiegirl711) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:02:45 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or bad? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141987 Snape- when discussing this character I often get mixed views on his attitude. Is he good or bad? Many who believe Dumbledore (lets call him dd) is not dead, feel Snape is good. Others believe he is 100% evil. What is my opinion? Well honestly, I think Snape is neither good nor bad. Although he isn't the happiest person, I don't think he is a terrible Death Eater.I feel Snape (who *SPOILER* we learn is the HBP and is AMAZING at potions) was asked by dd to put the potion in place of the horcrux. The potion, which seemed to weaken dd, in fact made him able to withstand the unforgivable curse. Other Death Eaters saw dd die (so Snape would not be killed by the vow....he did "attempt" to kill dd)I have many more unanswered questions (as do we all)and am hopefully going to get more insight by chatting with all of you please put your opinion. aussiegirl711 From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 03:12:35 2005 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 03:12:35 -0000 Subject: What will happen to The Order o t Phoenix Was Re: Snape and the blah-blah what In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141988 Before I launch into what will happen to the Order, I just want to comment on an earlier point in BG's post: "B.G." wrote: >Everyone still ponders - why did DD trust Snape? There must be > more than his coming to DD to confess that he told LV about the > prophecy -Snape had no place to turn when LV vanished. Did DD ask >Snape to enter into a UV with him to protect Harry? > Saraquel: I know that I've pondered about DD asking Snape to take a UV, but decided that it would be very OOC for DD to do this. To my mind, a UV is something that you ask someone to make when you do not trust them to either make the right choices or follow through on their word. I think we have enough proof in canon to assert that DD places a very great emphasis on choice and tries to offer everyone the opportunity to make the right choice in every circumstance. Assuming that DD places his trust in Snape on the basis of a UV, is saying, IMO, that DD absolutely refused to trust Snape and decided to take away Snape's freedom of choice by insisting that he take an UV. In fact, what DD would be doing is trusting the UV, not trusting Snape. So no, I don't think that DD has ever asked *anyone* to take a UV, although I could possibly imagine him ceremonially taking a pledge or a commitment for himself. But it seems that the way a UV works, it is between two people, rather than one person committing to a cause or a course of action, so I can't ever see DD having anything to do with UVs. If Snape had said to DD, I want to go on the straight and narrow, please can I take a UV with you? I rather think DD would have said no, as again, this would have bound Snape to *him*, rather than encouraging Snape to have faith in himself to do the right thing when faced with a choice. OK, now for the Order. B.G. Wrote >Harry will lead the DA - the New Order. Saraquel: I'm sure that somewhere really upthread we discussed what will happen to the Order, but I can't remember the outcomes, and don't think it was discussed in great depth, so I would like to reinvestigate if that's OK (hoping I'm not simply repeating what has been said before). The Order is now leaderless and perhaps we could criticise DD for not ensuring that there was a clear second in command to take over. I really don't think that Harry will take over the lead of the Order. He is young, inexperienced and has already refused to tell McGonegall what's going on. DD has pretty well isolated him (apart from Ron and Hermione) intending him to go on alone. Harry knows this and IMO has already determined that he will fly separately from the Order but IMO, will probably call on the skills of various members of it ? eg Bill the cursebreaker. I also think that the only members of the old DA who will continue to help Harry are Luna and Neville. I think that JKR is going to have to drop characters in the last book to get all the action in, so I suspect that we have probably heard the last of the DA and Dean, Seamus, Cho etc (except maybe in passing). I think she ended the DA for definite in HBP, when they were recalled and only Luna and Neville showed up. Although we know that for JKR it is important in the genre, for the hero to go alone into the valley of death without the 600, but she has to find a reason for it in the story. My assumption has been that DD suspects someone is telling porky pies about their allegiances and is spying for LV ? but that's another thread altogether, so ignoring that for the moment, the questions are, 1 If there is to be a new leader who will emerge to do it? 2 Is there a possibility that the Order as we know it will fall apart? Taking number one first - although McGonegall immediately took over as head of Hogwarts I don't think she has the charisma to lead the Order. To me, her character is one of right-hand-woman. IMO, in times of peace she would make a good democratic leader, but she lacks the decisiveness to go out on a limb, take risks and carry people through, which is needed in times of war and crisis. I don't think she would want the role. Lupin, Arthur, Molly, Tonks, Flitwick are all non-starters IMO ? however much Molly might think Arthur is ideal for the job. Elphias Doge ? wheezy-voiced silver haired wizard (OotP p47 ff) ? nope; Dedalus Diggle ? "squeaked the excitable Diggle" ? nope; Emmaline Vance ? late ? nope, but would probably have been the best contender. However, there is a possibility that DD has hidden her: but the DEs think she's dead and surely that would only happen in a DDM!Snape being sent to kill her scenario. No I think she's dead; Sturgis Podmore ? "square jawed wizard with thick straw-coloured hair winked" ? probably not; Hestia Jones ? "a pink cheeked, black haired woman witch waved from next to the toaster" ? I'm not convinced here Hagrid ? not a good idea Caradoc Dearborn (OotP p158) ? well, I think that there's a strong possibility that .. OK, don't get me started, but mark my words ? remember Caradoc Dearborn ? he will figure prominently in book 7 ? remember you saw it here first :-) Moody and Mung ? deal with them in a minute. Bill, Charley and the twins ? Charley is still in Romania, and as we know that Grindlewald will come into book 7, he may stay there and help Harry with that part of the book (although I don't know where Grindlewald was based.) I don't think Bill is leader material either, probably a bit too interested in sex and rock `n roll ? don't know about the drugs bit and after Greyback, he has plenty to contend with. Twins ? well really There are at least two loose cannons in the Order members that we know of ? Moody and Mungdungus. I don't think Moody would follow anyone's orders, he's too absorbed in his own paranoia. His orders come from his own head, but I think DD probably had the skill to work with Moody, in a Q'i Gong sort of way, allowing Moody's own momentum to propel him along while deftly deflecting him in the right direction. Moody also trusted DD's ability as a great wizard, I doubt he has enough admiration for anyone else's abilities to trust them. Mundungus is a problem already. He's still lying low, as far as we know, but I would think that the twins are still in touch, and if Harry needs to contact him ? which I imagine he will re the locket ? the twins will be instrumental in bringing that about. I don't think, with DD gone, that Mung will have a lot to do with the Order. IIRC, DD helped him out of a tight spot and Mung's membership of the Order was more to do with his allegiance to DD personally, rather than his political leanings ? woz that mean then? Now that leaves the only possible contender in my mind, and that's Kingsley Shacklebolt. Intelligent, trustworthy (he's in the muggle PM's office) has a foot in the Ministry and knows what's going on. Able to take initiative and think on his feet ? modifying Marietta `s memory (OotP p548). Skilled ? he's an experienced auror. If anyone takes the lead, I think it will be him. The next problem to be faced, IMO, is the relationship of the Order to the three musketeers. I wonder if they will take kindly to Harry following his own path. They don't know about the contents of the prophecy, even if some of them know about the first couple of lines. They don't necessarily know that Trelawney was the one who spoke it. They don't know about the horcruxes. Although they know that Voldemort is after Harry and that DD was trying to protect him, they don't know that Harry must meet Voldemort to defeat him. To them, Harry is someone to be protected from Voldemort and presumably, following DD's lead, they will take this seriously. It strikes me that they won't take kindly to what they see as a belligerent teenager taking matters into his own hands and getting himself into danger. Taking all this into account, I wonder if the relationship between the Order and Harry et al will start to fracture and disintegrate, and Harry might find himself with the Order as one of his problems. We know from JKR that Harry and Snape will meet again, and I can see real conflict if the Order gets to know about that before it happens. In all the criticism of Ron from the fans, JKR has said something along the lines of ? if you don't like Ron, at least appreciate his loyalty to Harry. From that, I take it that Ron will stick by Harry through thick and thin. However, we have precedence for Hermione taking information back to authority against Harry's wishes ? the firebolt. I'm wondering if Hermione, in her concern for Harry's life, might warn the Order that Harry is planning to see Snape ? which could have really interesting consequences. Whether this happens or not, I can easily see the schism widening between Harry and the Order. I think that the Order will continue, at least initially, because it was not only about protecting Harry, it was about gathering information and undermining Voldemort's plans. With DD dead, Scrimgeour will be even more concerned to get Harry on board to calm fears in the WW. Does he know about the existence of the Order? Just how secret was it? It's possible that the Ministry knows of its existence, which could lead to him finding out about Shacklebolt and putting pressure on him to deal with Harry. If Shacklebolt does become the leader then there is a possibility of him falling in with Scrimgeour over the Harry problem. Perhaps trying to tie the Order in with the Ministry more ? it possibly becoming more of a MI5/CIA type organisation. I don't know that this would go down well with some of the members who we know have no love for the Ministry ? McGonegall, Lupin and therefore, probably Tonks, Hagrid and Flitwick for starters. In other words, it is easy to see a quick and easy way to cause friction and division within the Order if JKR wanted to do that. The sraighforward possibility is that the Order remains united and backs Harry, even though they don't know what he is up to. But this would require putting enormous trust in a seventeen year old who refuses to let anyone in on the secret. I don't think I'd be convinced of that. I think that even if Scrimgeour and the Ministry are removed from the equation, there are inevitably going to be splits in the Order between those who back Harry unwaveringly and those who don't, which will be really interesting to see. So all in all, I think that the Order will split for one reason or another, and that they may even add to Harry's burdens. Wild speculation I know, but can't see a way in which the Order stays together and united, post DD. Sarauqel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 03:24:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 03:24:28 -0000 Subject: Whether Harry Potter books are children literature again WAS: RE: Strange DD... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141989 > > bboyminn: > As to people's continued references to this as a children's series, > that is simply not true. JKR never wrote this with a target audience, > or if there was a target audience, it was 'General' not children. The > publishers marketed the books to children, but that was a purely > commercial decision, thought admittedly a wise one, but JKR herself > said that she wrote these books for herself. If other people liked > them that was fine, but she was telling the story that had to be told, > and telling it the way it had to be told, and let the chips fall where > they may. So, the series is written for 'general' audiences which > includes kids, but doesn't necessarily target them. Alla: I disagree, Steve, I think. I mean, of course JKR wrote this story for herself, BUT I am quite sure that she had kids ( I don't know ten - twelve year olds, maybe teens as her primary audiences in mind) This had been debated many times and I absolutely agree that her work has universal appeal, but I think that kids in the beginning were the main audience. As one of the pieces of evidence ( sure not the main one, but the one which strengthens my belief that I interpret her intentions correctly) is her answer on the website about her seeing herself as children writer. " Rowling is 'riled' by being seen as a children's author JKR: Absolute garbage! I have said many times that if I remain a children's author forever (which I may well do) I will never see this as being a lesser, easier or less 'serious' career than writing for adults. Whenever I have discussed the possibility of writing adult fiction, it has nearly always been because an interviewer has asked 'might you one day write a book for adults?'" >From this quote, if from nothing else it is clear to me that she sees herself as children writer. Children and young adult literature does not have to be simplistic or uninteresting, it can have universal appeal, as JKR books certainly do, but IMO it IS first and foremost children literature. What are the evidence from the books? Well, going back to the " dynamic characters thread" IMO the strongest evidence that HP are books for children or young adults is the portrayal of adults, which are portrayed as either incompetent or dead and children or now teenagers are taking the center stage. Again, some adults ARE interesting characters,BUT those who could guide the young hero, or help him in ANY kind of way are now dead and he is forced to rely on his friends only. So, to sum up I am not sure if JKR intended to TARGET kids as her main audience, but I think she had them in mind , IMO. I also think that JKR may have thought of adult audience, but only when she saw how popular her books became among the adults. JMO of course, Alla From Nanagose at aol.com Sun Oct 23 04:38:13 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:38:13 -0000 Subject: Snape 's story to Bella in Spinner's End WAS:Re: Snape and the blah-blah...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141990 > Alla: > I am talking about whether Snape was telling the truth in general in > his story to Bella. Now as you probably know I think that the > interpretation that everything that he WAS talking about was the > truth has at least an equal support to "Snape's lying to Bella" > intepretation. > > So, after rereading the chapter, it does not seem to me that this is > what Snape is saying. Here is what he is saying: > > I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. The > Duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained > a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once > were. But through all these years, he has never stopped trusting > Severus Snape, and therein lies my great value to the Dark Lord. - > p.31 > > > Am I missing something here? Is there something in this quote that > we know for sure to be a lie? Christina: I see this as, not quite a lie, but an exaggeration. Do we have any evidence that Dumbledore was injured by the ring because of poor reflexes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that injury could not have been avoided in Dumbledore's handling of the ring. > Alla: > Snape does not specify WHERE Dumbledore sustained such injury, but > it could be because he himself has no clue, right? I think > Dumbledore could have asked Snape to heal him without specifying > what caused the injury. Christina: I suppose so, but I find it unlikely. Whether Snape is on Dumbledore's side or not, Dumbledore trusts him completely, and I don't see why he would ask him to heal his injury without telling him what it was from. > Alla: > I don't see where Snape lies in this quote, he may omit things, > sure, but lying? I don't know about that. Christina: Well, I can tell you what I personally find strange. It has always bothered me that he took credit for Sirius's death. I just don't see how he could have helped bring that about. Harry might blame Snape for goading Sirius concerning his confinement in 12GP, but there is *no way* Sirius was going to stay indoors when Harry was in danger, no matter what Snape or anyone might have done/said to him. I've also expressed some concern about the foe-glass moment in GoF (first addressed in message #136806). This is not 100% prove that Snape lied to Bellatrix, but it some heavy evidence. Snape sees himself in Fake!Moody's foe-glass at the end of GoF. All of the evidence suggests that the glass shows the foes of the owner (Fake!Moody), and shows one's true enemies, not their perceived enemies. Now, barring some kind of cheesy explanation (ie, all the Death Eaters are Fake!Moody's foes because they are not helping LV rise again), this shows that Snape was DD!Man at the end of GoF. Now, while this says *nothing* about his loyalties during HBP, it *does* show that he must have lied to Bella here: (HBP, pg 28) "...by allowing Dumbledore to think that I was only returning to the Dark Lord's side because I was ordered to, I have been able to pass information on Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix ever since! Consider, Bellatrix: The Dark Mark had been growing stronger for months. I knew he must be about to return, all the Death Eaters knew! I had plenty of time to think about what I wanted to do, to plan my next move, to escape like Karkaroff, didn't I?" Basically, Snape is saying that he delayed returning to Voldemort so that he could continue helping the Dark Lord as his spy. Also, he is saying that he had planned this move out in advance, since the burning of his Mark signalled him to LV's return. But if Snape was on the side of the Order at the end of GoF, then this is an outright lie. I also think Snape's claim that Dumbledore wouldn't give him the DADA job because it might "tempt him him into his old ways," is ridiculous, for reasons that have been brought up on this list many times. This idea is particularly validated by the information we now know about the *real* DADA curse. This is of course, all my opinion, but even if Snape does turn out to be ESE!, I still find it difficult to believe that everything he said to Bella was true. No matter where his allegiances lie, I doubt he tells the whole truth to anyone. ...And lying by omission is still lying, isn't it? Christina From greatraven at hotmail.com Sun Oct 23 04:51:20 2005 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:51:20 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or bad? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141991 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "aussiegirl711" wrote: > > Snape- when discussing this character I often get mixed views on his > attitude. Is he good or bad? Many who believe Dumbledore (lets call > him dd) is not dead, feel Snape is good. Others believe he is 100% > evil. What is my opinion? Well honestly, I think Snape is neither good > nor bad. Although he isn't the happiest person, I don't think he is a > terrible Death Eater.I feel Snape (who *SPOILER* we learn is the HBP > and is AMAZING at potions) was asked by dd to put the potion in place > of the horcrux. The potion, which seemed to weaken dd, in fact made > him able to withstand the unforgivable curse. Other Death Eaters saw > dd die (so Snape would not be killed by the vow....he did "attempt" to > kill dd)I have many more unanswered questions (as do we all)and am > hopefully going to get more insight by chatting with all of you please > put your opinion. > > aussiegirl711 Sue here: We have one book to go and in the meantime plenty of time to have fun with this and other questions. Personally, I think Snape is not a nice man, but that doesn't mean he is working for the bad guys. As somebody said in GOF, the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters. (I think, ironically, it may have been Sirius, but can't recall). I believe that, however we try to wriggle out of it, DD is dead. JKR doesn't mess around. His name is Dumbledore, not Gandalf, even if there are some qualities in common, such as being both a great wizard and the kind of guy you'd be pleased to have a pint with and play a game of darts at the local pub. I think DD knew what he was letting himself in for and was willing to make the sacrifice if necessary - and perhaps Snape's fury was at being forced to go through with something he didn't want to do - but this is a topic for another thread, you only asked for Snape being good or bad and DD being dead or not. Now Voldemort has no reason to suspect Snape any more - DD gave him that. Well, I could be wrong, Snape might well be the two-dimensional villain he appears, but I think JKR is a better writer than that. (On the other hand, hundreds of years after Shakespeare wrote merchant of Venice, people are still arguing about Shylock...) Fellow Aussie girl Sue > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 05:41:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 05:41:08 -0000 Subject: Snape 's story to Bella in Spinner's End WAS:Re: Snape and the blah-blah...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141992 Alla wrote: > > I am talking about whether Snape was telling the truth in general in his story to Bella. Now as you probably know I think that the interpretation that everything that he WAS talking about was the truth has at least an equal support to "Snape's lying to Bella" intepretation. > > So, I am quite sure that one of the arguments which was raised against Snape being truthful with Bella in the past was that some of the pieces of the story told by Snappe contradicts with what we as readers already know happened. > So, after rereading the chapter, it does not seem to me that this is > what Snape is saying. Here is what he is saying: > > I am pleased to say, however, that Dumbledore is growing old. The Duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were. But through all these years, he has never stopped trusting Severus Snape, and therein lies my great value to the Dark Lord. - p.31 > > > Am I missing something here? Is there something in this quote that we know for sure to be a lie? > I mean, it is a very reasonable assumption that duel with Voldie shook Dumbledore, no? Snape does not say that Dumbledore was injured in DoM, which we know did not happened, but we did not know how he felt, in fact, I think he WAS shooked pretty badly if for nothing else, but because Harry almost died. After all Snape does not specify what kind of "shook up" Albus sustained AND then he says that Dumbledore since sustained a serious injury, which is also true. Snape does not specify WHERE Dumbledore sustained such injury, but it could be because he himself has no clue, right? I think Dumbledore could have asked Snape to heal him without specifying what caused the injury. > > I don't see where Snape lies in this quote, he may omit things, sure, but lying? I don't know about that. Carol responds: I can't give this post the full response it deserves right now because I would need to quote a great deal of canon to support my position, which is that Snape neatly combines truths, half truths, and lies in his story to Bellatrix, which is, with a few embellishments, exactly the same story he had prepared to tell Voldemort when Voldemort returned to power--as Snape knew he was about to do because of the Dark Mark. That, IMO, is what Dumbledore meant when he asked Snape in GoF: "Are you ready? Are you prepared?" IOW, "Have you prepared a story that Voldemort will believe and are you ready to tell it?" Snape, though he's clearly facing great danger and is slightly paler than usual says "I am" and goes off to face Voldie (GoF, quoted from memory). A number of elements in Snape's story ring false to me (which is good if he's DDM!), but I'm only going to touch on them here, as I think and hope that Potioncat will raise this question in her discussion and I don't want to step on her toes. For example, I believe that Snape knew perfectly well that Quirrell was aiding Voldemort and perhaps even suspected that Voldemort was under the turban. Also, he's clearly concealing the fact that he was spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" before he taught at Hogwarts. He is also claiming that he provided information on Sirius Black that we know was supplied or could have been supplied by either Kreacher or Wormtail. Enough on this topic now--I do want to come back to it when I have time to respond in detail and support my points with canon. To look specifically at the quote you cited, you ask if you're missing something here. I would say yes. I disagree that Dumbledore, who has made it clear throughout the book that he trusts Snape absolutely and that he relies on Snape's knowledge of Dark Magic, would ask him to treat the injury without telling him how he sustained it. This is information Snape would have to know in order to take the "timely action" that saved DD's life. Snape knows perfectly well what the injury Dumbledore sustained is--a blackened hand caused by a particular curse for which he obviously knows the countercurse--but he withholds this information from Bella and Narcissa. Quite likely he also knows *how* Dumbledore sustained the injury--by destroying a Horcrux. And he's not about to pass that information on to the Black sisters, any more than he's going to tell them that he saved Dumbledore's life. But word is going to get out that DD has a blackened hand, and Snape has to have a cover story--that DD is getting old and his reflexes were slowed in the Battle in the MoM. I, for one, didn't see any evidence of a slowdown. DD is very much himself at the end of OoP. He is different, though, from the first moment we see him in HBP. What has slowed him down, or rather, speeded him up (notice that he's in a hurry throughout HBP) is not slowed reflexes from the MoM but the injury from the ring Horcrux and the knowledge that there are more of them out there, which must be found and destroyed quickly. It's crucial that Snape keep this information from Voldemort, so he tells the cover story of old age slowing DD down--exactly the story that DD tells Amycus Carrow (I'm assuming that's his last name) on the tower when DD is clearly "on his last legs" (Amycus's words quoted from memory) from the potion. It sounds as if Snape and DD have agreed upon this story since both of them tell it. I'm not saying that Snape is lying to Bella in this instance, but he is choosing his truths very carefully. And a half truth is as good as a lie if it fools the enemy. Better, in fact, because it can't be disproved. Anyway, I don't have time to answer this question as fully as I would like, going point by point through his responses to Bella, but I'm altogether certain that Snape does *not* believe that Voldemort is the world's greatest Legilimens and I think he has indeed pulled the wool over LV's eyes--as Bella suspects but is afraid to admit for fear of seeming disloyal to her master. I have more to say on this chapter (naturally), but I want to wait till Potioncat posts her discussion questions on Monday. Carol From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 23 07:02:08 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 23 Oct 2005 07:02:08 -0000 Subject: Reminder - chap. disc. of HBP2 (Spinner's End) Message-ID: <1130050928.14.65108.m29@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 141993 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. chap. disc. of HBP2 (Spinner's End) Date: Monday, October 24, 2005 Time: All Day Since the dissection of HBP ch. 2 (Spinner's End) 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 Potioncat in the week of October 24th! 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 quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 07:19:54 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:19:54 -0000 Subject: That Tower AK again (Star Wars I, II, and IV spoilers) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141994 There has been a lot of speculation recently as to whether the AK cast by Snape on the Tower was a real AK. To recap, one side says, "Snape said *Avada Kadavera*, there was a shot of green light, and DD died. Therefore it was a real AK." The other side says, "We have seen the AK in action, and it was different than the one on the tower. Therefore it may not have been a real AK." These are, of course, oversimplified on my part. Both sides have also included thematic and symbolic evidence, and both have presented strong arguements for their side. I'd like to further recap the "not an AK" side a bit. Several people, here and elsewhere, have brought into evidence previous examples of the AK as we have seen it in the text. To recap briefly: LV AKs his dad and grandparents, who drop dead, unblemished, with a look of terror on their faces. Later, LV AKs Frank Bryce, who drops dead as well. We don't see his expression, but his echo later expresses surprise. Fake!Moody AKs the spider, which drops dead, although again, we are unable to discern whether or not it looked surprised. When Wormtail AKs Cedric, Ced drops dead with an expression of surprise. The "not an AK" folks have used this to further their side by noting that DD did not just "drop dead" but rather flew up over the wall on which he had been heavily leaning and landed with an expression which was described as "might have been sleeping" (I'm not opening that can of worms!) rather than a look of shock or terror, as previously described on the faces of the AK victims. Now that the recap is done, I am actually going to say something original. The other night I found myself with an uncooperative internet connection and amused myself by watching Star Wars Episode II. I noticed something which may explain a few things here. I have not included any spoilers for Episode III as it is not out on DVD yet. SPOILERS FOR STAR WARS I, II, AND IV: I am taking the events in the order they "actually" happened, rather than the order in which the movies were made and released. (What do you mean "It's fiction"?) I am focusing on the use of light sabres and the effects on those who have been struck by them. In Episode I, Obi-Wan Kenobi slashes his light sabre through Darth Maul in Maul's midsection. Maul has a look of pained bewilderment on his face as his body severs neatly in two and he falls into the melting pit. In Episode II, Mace Windu slices his light sabre through the neck of Jango Fett. Fett is cleanly decapitated, and his head and body fall seperately to the ground. His facial expression is not discernable due to his helmet. Also in Episode II, Count Dooku cuts off Anikin's arm. The arm drops to the floor, and Anikin is thrown back onto the ground where he lays with a look of agony on his face. In Episode IV, Obi-Wan severs the arm of Ponda Baba in the Mos Eisley Cantina. While Baba's Aqualish expression is difficult to read, there is little doubt as to his reaction. His arm falls to the floor, and he appears to be clearly pained and shocked. Later in Episode IV, Darth Vader slices Obi-Wan right in the area of the ribcage. The light sabre clearly goes through Obi-Wan. From everything we have seen in previous light sabre battles (and I have only listed a few of the main ones), Obi-Wan *should* have been split into two halves and fallen to the ground with a look of pain and shock. This doesn't happen. Instead, Obi-Wan vanishes, leaving only his cloak and light sabre. Was this a *real* light sabre attack? It would seem so, and to my limited knowledge, no one has suggested that it was a fake lighe sabre. Why didn't it act like the previous attacks? Let's rewind. Immediately before the fatal blow, Obi-Wan has ascertained that Luke and the others are almost to the ship, and that their escape is all but assured. The Storm Troopers' attentions are diverted to the battle between Vader and Kenobi. Obi-Wan, realizing, and indeed having told Vader, that if Vader strikes him down, he (Kenobi) will become more powerful than Vader could imagine, raises his light sabre, and with a look of meditative concentration, allows Vader to strike the mortal blow. I am going to throw in a bit of an Episode III spoiler here as it is expositional in nature and does not effect the plot of that movie. We learn that Kenobi's Master, Qui-Gon Jinn, has extended his knowledge of the Force to allow a dead Jedi to communicate with the living, and that Kenobi has spent the last 20? years meditating on this. Obi-Wan is powerful with the Force, as DD is powerful with his knowledge of Magic. Both die in circumstances which are not consistant with canon as to the effects of the fatal blow to them. Neither seems surprised by the final blow or terrified of death in general. With all this in mind, I would like to throw out this question: Would it be possible that the uncanonnical effects of the AK on DD were due not to the verity of the AK itself, but rather, due to the power and intentions of the person on whom it was cast? This could indicate that DD went willingly, or that he has a knowledge of Magic that would cause him to think that his departure in that manner would be beneficial to the survivers, or some other explanation altogether. It is not necessary to think that he planned it in advance, or that he did it in a calculated manner, although the latter is my personal opinion. There is much room for all kinds of speculation as to DD's motives, powers, and knowledge, as well as a ton of other factors that I have not touched on. Something to think about. On another topic, as long as I have your attention: I am requesting a bit of help from the old listees. Once upon a time, way back when, someone described Snape as being "sexier than socks on a rooster". I have not been able to find who said that, and would like to know as it popped into my head as a filk bunny. Should I use it, I would like to give proper credit to that person. If anyone remembers saying that, or who said it, could you please let me know offlist? It would be greatly appreciated. Ginger, still annoyed that SW III isn't being released on VHS, despite the fact that Little Sister gave me her old DVD player so I wouldn't have to buy one for one movie. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 23 09:46:25 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:46:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's mistakes? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141995 > > Elyse earlier: > > Oh I have to disagree with you here! I dont think Dumbledore > > would let his personal trust or belief in others interfere with > the > > safety of his students. I think this is more than evident from the > > scene in HBP: > > Harry says something along the lines of :"You're leaving the > school > > tonight and I'll bet you havent even considered that Snape and > > Malfoy might decide to-" > > And *this* is the point where DD becomes angry. Harry feels he has > > crossed an invisible line. And DD says: > > "Please do not suggest that I do not take the safety of my > students > > seriously, Harry" > > And hey, if he says that to his favourite boy, the Chosen One who > > he cares so much for, I say thats what he would have said to us > too. > > > Alla: > > Erm... If I am still not clear enough, I think that what Dumbledore > said and what Dumbledore does are two different things sometimes, as > in that situation you quoted. He surely wishes to do the best job > he can, but IMO he is so not up to the task sometimes ( safety wise) > Dumbledore THOUGHT he knew what Draco was up to, and he paid no > attention whatsoever to Harry's warnings. Result? Draco repairing > the cabinet and letting DE into school. Dumbledore WAS surprised by > Dark Mark, so I hope you are not arguing that he wanted DE to get > into Hogwarts, but the fact and the matter - they did. > > This is a great example of major flaw ( sort of) I see in > Dumbledore - he is too wise for his own good. H > Elyse: Oh, thanks for explaining. I finally get what you were trying to say! Well I agree you could argue that, but I think that would tarnish Dumbledore even worse than his behaviour towards Harry in OOP. I would be terribly disappointed if Dumbledore wanted to keep his students safe but could not do so because of his own blindness when it came to people like Tom Riddle, Snape and Malfoy. But I understand what you mean, and I think it would be another instance of how Dumbledore is also capable of making mistakes. Maybe that is what JKR intended after all. > > > Elyse: > > But how many people would have really accepted > > DD's claims that this nice quiet sweet intelligent boy was really > a > > psychopath? > > They would have said the same stuff the Snape haters have done for > > all this time, and simply thrown his hands into the air and > > gone "You know what, the old man is Wrong! He's getting old, and > in > > the matter of his prejudice towars that lovely boy, well his > > judgement is just a little biased thats all." > > Thats is after all what Snape haters keep harping on. I'm sure it > > would have been the same if he declared to the teachers that > Riddle > > was evil. > > > Alla: > > I do not follow you, sorry. What are you basing your assumption on > that if Dumbledore told the teachers that Tommie Riddle is a child > who needs to be watched after, a psychopath in making, they would > not listened to him. > > As I said above - all teachers tolerated Snape ONLY because > Dumbledore said so, IMO and the only reason they thought that > Dumbledore was wrong, well, because Snape killed him. > > I think it is a huge show of trust that they accepted Snape as > colleague based on Dumbledore's word only. Do you have canon showing > that teachers mistrusted Dumbledore for any reason? > Also, I am not sure what do you mean by "this is what Snape haters > keep harping on" > Elyse: Well, youre right, I was basing the potential disregard for "Tom Riddle is a psychpath" warnings from Dumbledore on the treatment given to Snape all these years. I do not believe that anybody really trusted him at all, and I think this was evident from their reactions after his death. Mcgonagall did say stuff like "We all wondered..." and someone said naturally people were going to wonder given Snape's history (fascination for Dark Arts etc) and then Lupin starts attacking Snape. This is quite understandable seeing as they were shocked by DD's death. But Lupin was the one who said at Christmastime that he trusted Snape because he trusted Dumbledore's judgement. But in the hospital wing, his reaction to the fact that Dumbledore was wrong about Snape didnt reinforce his earlier words. (BTW it poked a giant hole in his "I neither like nor dislike Severus" statement, which I never believed anyway) The point is even if they accepted working with Snape and accepted Dumbledore's second hand trust, they still retained their original mistrust and suspicions. I think this would have been the case with Tom Riddle.As Mrs Cole put it "It is hard to catch him at (being a bully)" . I think that even if they had kept an eye on Tom Riddle on Dumbledore's words, they would have thought he was prejudiced, and in any situation, would have tried to exonerate Tom Riddle of any wrongdoing because they would have fallen for Tom Riddle's ESG fa?ade sooner or later. Of course, all this is pure speculation on my part, and I might be wrong. And as you speculate, maybe they would have thwarted Tom Riddle's ascension to evil, maybe they would have stopped him becoming the fearsome figure Lord Voldemort is today. I personally don't buy the scenario quite so easily but we can put that down to difference of opinion. What I meant about the Snape haters was that although Dumbledore kept saying that he trusted Snape, everyone refused to believe that Snape had changed sides. Harrys POV might be prejudiced , maybe Moody's was as well. But both of them mistrusted Snape and did not believe that he had really changed sides. Harry repeatedly questions Dumbledore's trust in Snape and Moody looks skeptical in the pensieve when Dumbledore says that Snape is "now no more a Death Eater than I am". Ron is of coure ever ready to suspect Snape and his motives. And Sirius obviously never really trusted Snape. It seems that only Hermione, Mcgonagall, and Lupin were ready to accept the trust that Dumbledore had placed in him. Yet their reactions after DD's death sre not those of disbelief like Hagrid's. Mcgonagall tells us that they all "wondered" about Snape's so called shift of allegiance, and Lupin very readily gives us facts to base these suspicions on. From this I gather that there must have been heavy suspicion, speculation etc about Snape's motives among Order members like them , although this is me speculating again. So my speculation tells me that nobody really bought into the DDM! Snape theory. And those ESE Snapists who still don't buy it, keep saying that Snape pulled the wool over DD's eyes because he liked to believe the best of people (which I am not disputing) but Snape didn't fool other people such as Harry and Moody because they were right about suspecting his motives. So what I am linking all this to is Dumbledore telling the teachers that Tom Riddle is a psychopath (or at least has dangerous tendencies). By looking at the Snape situation, and from those areas that my speculation led me to, I think that they would not have bought Dumbledore *mistrust* of Tom Riddle, just as they didn't buy the trust the Dumbledore had in Snape completely. And as Snape gave Moody and Harry enough reason for them to believe that he might be evil, I think Tom Riddle would have been able to make the teachers who had already been warned about him to disagree with Dumbledore's assessment of him. I think he would have been able to deceive them completely so that as people questioned Dumbledore's trust in Snape, they might have questioned his mistrust of Tom Riddle. And if Tom Riddle was "hard to catch at (being a bully)" then lack of concrete proof may have allowed him to gain the teachers' trust. Once again this is almost all speculation, so I could be wrong. As you always say this is Just my opinion Elyse From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 23 14:14:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:14:55 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End Discussion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141996 Potioncat enters the room and clears her throat nervously. "Erm... hello. Everybody...well, you see, Spinner's End has been discussed nonstop since the book came out. Not to mention it was being discussed before the book came out. And, well...you see...I couldn't think of any new questions. So, I'll post a summary without any questions. You should all continue your own discussions with gusto. * * * * * * * * Well, not really. I have come up with questions, but I'm taking a different approach than most of the current discussions about Snape. That way, hopefully, we'll end up with a tapestry and not a bunch of tangled threads. So, keep on discussing the current topics, and I hope you'll enjoy the Chapter 2 Discussion Questions. Potioncat From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 09:15:36 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:15:36 -0000 Subject: Interpretation (was Re: Dumbledore's "peaceful expression"?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141997 > Neri: > Why do you believe the castle steps are high above the forest? Anyway, > they are not on the castle steps. They're on the grounds walking > towards the forest: "The sun was falling towards the tops of the trees > in the Forbidden Forest now as Hermione marched purposefully across > the grass, Umbridge Jogging to keep up." (Chapter 33). > > In any case this is splitting hairs. If we stretch everything to save > Snape's name we might conclude it was only 3.5 hours. > Jumping in and quoting just this little bit. I played with the time line myself and came up with a reasonable way for Snape to have spent those 3.5 hours. Starting from the moment that he leaves Umbridge's office.... 1. He contacts 12 Grimauld place (we don't know how) and detemines that Sirius is there. Since we don't know how, we can't really know how long it took. But say it takes half an hour--long enough for Ron, Neville, Ginny, and Luna to hex their captors and escape. 2. He returns to the office to find it empy. At this point, he doesn't know where anyone in the office is. The Forbiddin Forest isn't the conclusion I'd jump to. If I were Snape, I'd start looking in Filch's office, the dungeons... places Umbridge might place six students for punishment. Eventually, he comes upon the Inquisatorial Squad (maybe in the Hospital Wing? Maybe in the Slytherin Common Room? And he learns from them that Hermione and Harry took Umbridge into the Forest to look for some weapon. This could easily take an hour. 3. He starts into the Forest to look for them (probably wondering why the heck they're now looking for a weapon.) By this time, it's probably getting dark and it could take him a long time to track them to the spot where they met the Centaurs. Which would be very puzzling, especially since he probably doesn't know about Grawp. One possibility might be that the Centaurs took them all. Even if he didn't go on a wild goose chase after the Centaurs, it would take a bit of time to figure out that they left on thestrals instead. So, this could easily take another hour and a half to two hours. 4. Once he figures it out, he has to get back to the castle to contact the Order (using the fireplace in Umbridge's office, which is the only one not being watched.) Getting back takes time, probably at least half an hour (we're talking about a hurried pace through a forest at night). 1==.5 hours 2==1 hour 3==1.5-2 hours 4==.5 hours That's 3.5-4 hours. Without getting any dinner, either! What I don't understand, though, is why he'd go back into the Forest, unless he wanted to be sure about the Centaurs. Which leads to the question of why he didn't help Umbridge. But then again, why would he? Montavilla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 15:25:21 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:25:21 -0000 Subject: Snape 's story to Bella in Spinner's End WAS:Re: Snape and the blah-blah...... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141998 > Christina: > > I see this as, not quite a lie, but an exaggeration. Do we have any > evidence that Dumbledore was injured by the ring because of poor > reflexes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that injury > could not have been avoided in Dumbledore's handling of the ring. Alla: Well, no, I don't think that we have such an evidence, but my point is that it is POSSIBLE that Dumbledore's injury happened in that manner. I don't think that we have an evidence that the injury was unavolidable either. Here is what Dumbledore tells Harry about him going after the Ring. "The ring, Harry. Marvolo's ring. And a terrible curse there was upon it too. Had it not been - forgive me for the lack of seemly modesty - for my own prodigious skill, and for Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale. However, a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul. The ring is no longer a Horcrux" - HBP, p.303 I interpret this quote that it was really hard for Dumbledore to "unhorcrux" the Ring, but I don't see here an evidence that nobody else could have handle it ( some hypothetical powerful wizard :-)) or that everybody who would have handled a ring would ahve been injured. > > > Alla earlier: > > Snape does not specify WHERE Dumbledore sustained such injury, but > > it could be because he himself has no clue, right? I think > > Dumbledore could have asked Snape to heal him without specifying > > what caused the injury. > > Christina: > > I suppose so, but I find it unlikely. Whether Snape is on > Dumbledore's side or not, Dumbledore trusts him completely, and I > don't see why he would ask him to heal his injury without telling him > what it was from. Alla: Again, my point is that it is POSSIBLE. Don't you think that if Dumbledore does not inform Mcgonagall of what he was doing with Horcruxes, it is likely that he would want to keep it a secret from Snape too, even if he indeed trusts Snape completely? If for nothing else, than for Snape own safety, since if Voldie is that good a Legilimence, there is a danger that he could find out that interesting piece of information and I don't know screw up Dumbledore pl;ans really badly? Going back to my original argument - I am only arguing that there is nothing in the quote I brought up UPTHREAD that could allows us to say with certainty that Snape is lying to Bella. Everything he says is IMO quite likely to be the truth, it can also be a lie of course, or half truths, etc, BUT I am just disagreeing with the argument that we know for SURE that Snape is lying to Bella, that is all. > Christina: > > Well, I can tell you what I personally find strange. It has always > bothered me that he took credit for Sirius's death. I just don't see > how he could have helped bring that about. Alla: Well, I am going to say the same thing, I suppose. Yes, we know that Kreacher went to Malfoys, BUT there is nothing in canon IMO which prevents us from speculating that Snape reiterated Kreacher's information to Malfoys. I would say that after HBP knowing how close Snape with Malfoys and especially with Narcissa, it makes such speculation even stronger. I can absolutely see Snape wispering this piece of information to dear Cissy ( about Harry loving Sirius more than anybody else) and Cissy passing it to Lucius and then to Voldemort Christina: >> ...And lying by omission is still lying, isn't it? > Alla: Yes, but I did not say that I see Snape lying by omission in this scene, I can see him omitting things, but not lying by omission. I should have probably used " Snape sometimes does not go into details" expression. There are could be couple of reasons of why he does so - he either does not know all the details himself, OR he is OFH! and does not want to tell all the details to Cissy and Bella , because it could be against his best interests. JMO, Alla From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 23 16:06:40 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:06:40 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP1, The Other Minister In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 141999 > 5. Fudge says the dementors are breeding, which is causing the > gloomy weather throughout England. We know prior to this the > dementors were guarding Azkaban and working with the Ministry, yet > there was no chilly mist covering the land until now. Why weren't > they breeding before? Ministry controls? An agreement? Meri: Maybe dementors can only breed if given proper scope for their powers, which is what LV is giving them. Ceridwen: Maybe Ministry controls. Allowing only limited breeding, perhaps? Or, it could be that they were too restricted on Azkaban to breed much beyond their population. Or, they're like cougars, territorial, and to have offspring, they need to have a certain amount of space. Or, they did breed, but only in remote places near Azkaban (or on it, how would that be for affecting prisoners?), and the only reason it's noticeable now is because they're breeding closer to populated centers. justcarol67" Evidently the MoM had some degree of control over them and they were confined to Azkaban. Voldemort has evidently given them new privileges--or even free rein. ~aussie~ A good indication of Dementors and other weird beings we find within JKR's pages is found in "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them". Many of the most dangerous "Beasts" were bred by wizards for guarding purposes from other creatures. The Dementors seems to have such a back ground. Ref Lethifold .... and I quote .... LETHIFOLD (also known as Living Shroud) M.O.M. Classification: XXXXX The Lethifold is a mercifully rare creature found solely in tropical climates. It resembles a black cloak perhaps half an inch thick (thicker if it has recently killed and digested a victim) which glides along the ground at night. ... the Patronus is the only spell known to repel the Lethifold. Since it generally attacks the sleeping, though, its victims rarely have a chance to use any magic against it. Once its prey has been successfully suffocated, the Lethifold digests its food there and then in their bed. It then exits the house slightly thicker and fatter than before, leaving no trace of itself or its victim behind. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 23 17:02:02 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 23 Oct 2005 17:02:02 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1130086922.13.45308.m26@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142000 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 23, 2005 Time: 1:00PM CDT (GMT-05:00) 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 hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Oct 23 17:07:23 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:07:23 -0000 Subject: Interpretation (was Re: Dumbledore's "peaceful expression"?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > 1. He [Snape] contacts 12 Grimauld place (we don't know how) and detemines that Sirius is there. > Since we don't know how, we can't really know how long it took. But say it takes half an > hour--long enough for Ron, Neville, Ginny, and Luna to hex their captors and escape. Hickengruendler: I think we do. JKR said in her latest FAQ Poll answer on her website, that the means with which the Order communicates is a Patronus. And the question was based on the part of the book, where Dumbledore said that the Order has better communication methods. Therefore I think we are meant to believe, that he used his Patronus to communicate with Sirius. Since Tonks' patronus could tell, that she had found Harry, I think the Patronuses have a method to make themselves audible (or maybe they are using a sign language???). And considering the time it took Tonks' Patronus to make it to the castle and Dumbledore's Patronus to make it to Hagrid's Hut (in GoF), and that the Thestrals were said to be very fast, I think (which is of course not absolutely sure), that the Patronus was not much faster than the Thestrals, if it is faster at all. Let's assume for a moment Snape is not evil (or at least wasn't at that time) and sent the Patronus to GP12 the moment he left Umbridge's office, than we can assume, that it took some time for the Patronus to make all the way to London. (Which by the way, it probably would even if it is significantly faster than the Thestrals). Then Sirius' answer would take the same time to reach Snape. And then Snape's second Patronus to Sirius would again need this time. This reasoning is of course problematic, because you would think the Order would need faster communication methods for those long distances. But still, this is what JKR implied on her website. Hickengruendler From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 23 17:05:58 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:05:58 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142002 Dumbledore said in HBP, Chapter 'A Sluggish Memory': 'It is most important that we secure the true memory, Harry... how important, we will only know when we have seen the real thing.' What if they haven't seen the real thing? What if the memory Slughorn gave Harry was not the one he'd been hiding, but the cover-up? Since the first time I read HBP, I thought the memory Slughorn was trying to hide was this one: '_ you'll go wrong, boy, mark my words.' 'I don't know anything about Horcruxes and I wouldn't tell you if I did! Now get out of here at once and don't let me catch you mentioning them again!' The other scenario, the pretty one with the students sitting around Slughorn, everyone very cozy, with the trademark crystallised pineapples, seemed too perfect to be true. Dumbledore remarked the tempering of the memory had been very 'crudely done' and called it a 'transvesty of a recollection'. Now, he is talking about the magical work of a wizard that, according to Dumbledore himself, is 'extremely able'. We already knew that, because when we first met Slughorn, he had performed a lot of complicated magic in a very small period of time (the fake DE attack). So when Dumbledore says Slughorn performed poor magic, it's more than likely it doesn't mean the same thing as he saying Neville performed poor magic. What Dumbledore calls Slughorn's 'crudely done' magic is more likely to be something actually elaborate and difficult if you consider Neville's, or Harry's, POV. So, what Harry thought was a genuine memory could have been, or was, in my opinion, Slughorn's little farse. It looked real enough to Harry (just like the fake DE attack), but to Dumbledore it was very badly done, because the true memory was still there 'beneath the alterations'. But! But but? There are indeed several buts, and I can think of at least three god ones. But the big news about the seven Horcruxes? Wasn't that important enough? If the memory Harry retrieved from Slughorn isn't a complete farse, but a true memory he might have used to mix up with the foggy one (the one he's really trying to hide), the seven Horcruxes thing is solid information allright. But Dumbledore did say, ' how important (the true memory), we will only know when we have seen the real thing. ' So I presume the info in Slughorn's real memory is even more important than the knowledge of how many Horcruxes Voldemort planned to make. But Harry had taken the Felix Felicis! Nothing could have gone wrong! Now did he take Felix Felicis? I wrote another post (message # 141962) questioning if the liquid he drunk really was FF. And even if it was, what is luck, really? Does it translate as getting Slughorn's true memory right now? If Harry did take FF maybe it was luckier for him not to get that memory then; I'm not JKR and don't know the ways of the plot, so how can I know what is 'lucky' in terms of her plot and Harry's quest? But Dumbledore would have known it was not the foggy memory, wouldn't he? Not necessarily... Please follow me: Note that amongst all Harry's meetings with Dumbledore to see those memories, the only one that occurs by chance, and not by previous appointment. When Harry leaves Hagrid's hut just after the burial, Nearly Headless Nick tells him Dumbledore returned to the school an hour ago _ he says he 'got it from the Bloody Baron, who saw him arrive'. So Harry darts off to Dumbledore's office with the memory. ALL other encounters Harry and Dumbledore have in HBP are previously arranged by the headmaster. Harry always gets a letter (when he was at the Dursleys') or a scroll of parchment, telling him the time and place of their meeting. Please note JKR informs us very clearly of every single arrangement! Those were: - letter brought by Hedwig - scrolls of parchment handed to Harry by several students (in order, Jack Sloper, Demelza Robins, Ginny, Hermione and Luna). On a smaller note, we are also informed that a detention Snape gave Harry had to be re-scheduled because Harry 'already had a meeting with Dumbledore'. Of course a meeting with the headmaster would be more important than a detention with the DADA teacher, but JKR saw fit to inform us the timing of Harry and Dumbledore's meeting was NOT changed anyway. Another small note: Scrimgeour is dead curious about Dumbledore's whereabouts (nobody has been seeing much of Dumbledore, actually). That should make us curious about what the headmaster's been up to, right? Connecting those points together, we get the picture of an elusive headmaster, always away from Hogwarts, presumably collecting the memories for his Pensieve sessions with Harry, and always carefully informing Harry of when they are supposed to meet to see those memories. Well, when Harry hears (by chance?) Dumbledore's in Hogwarts and runs to his office to show him the memory he's just got, he breaks a pattern. And we have evidence something is indeed different: when Dumbledore pours the contents of the bottle into the Pensieve this time, he uses his left hand. In all previous Pensieve sessions he had used his right hand (the injured one) to handle the bottles. I'm not saying it's an impostor pretending to be Dumbledore (could it be, though?). I think something else happened. The breaking of the 'precise time pattern' means, in my opinion, that the Dumbledore in that specific Pensieve session (the one right after the burial) was somehow different than the 'other Dumbledores' in all other Pensieve sessions. He had, or more likely, lacked, information the 'other Dumbledores' had. Now, am I talking crazy? How can one person act differently, and/or have different information at different times? Aha. Precisely. One person does act differently and has different information, depending on which point in time that person is. I think Dumbledore has been Time Travelling all through HBP. That would explain why Scrimgeour so desperately sought Harry's aid to tell him where the headmaster was, why Dumbledore always carefully timed his meetings with Harry. And the reason Dumbledore didn't recognise the memory Harry presented him after the burial as the wrong one was because he was a 'different Dumbledore' from the one who had showed Harry the Sluggish memory. Meaning, 'Dumbledore right after burial' and 'Dumbledore showing Harry Sluggish memory' each had different amounts of information, and probably 'Dumbledore showing Harry Sluggish memory' had more info than the 'other' Dumbledore. Confusing? I think so, too. Think of PoA. When Harry and Hermione o back in time to save Sirius and Buckbeak, we have two sets of Harry-and-Hermione in the past. The difference between the 'from the future' and 'past' H-and-H is clearly shown when Harry-from-the-future is able to conjure the Patronus, and Harry-from-the-past is not. When Harry and Hermione use the Time Traveller again and return to the hospital wing, Harry now knows it was him, not his dad, who conjured the Patronus. He didn't know such before he Time-Travelled. So you see, the amount of information a person possesses varies terribly according to if that person is the 'person-from-the-future' or not, if they have returned from the Time Travel already or not. And in PoA the kids travelled only once (or rather twice, to the past and then back to the present). Imagine if Dumbledore has been travelling many times! No wonder he had to keep a schedule. I suspect he uses that watch of him to Time Travel (the one we see in the first chapter or PS/SS). Now that Ron's got a similar one (from Dumbledore himself??) I suspect the kids will Time Travel again in Book 7. Lucianam [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 23 18:29:08 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:29:08 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri: > Actually I pretty much agree with this estimation. The problem is that > it doesn't really matter for estimating the time of the Order's > arrival, it will just stretch the travel time from Scotland to London > (which is the single biggest unknown in the timeline) to compensate, > with the time of taking off from the forest canonically fixed at > sunset. What *does* matter is how much took the battle with the Order > and Dumbledore, even though this was *after* the Order arrived, > because when that is finished Harry is transported to Dumbledore's > office and sees the first light of dawn in the east, which is our next > canon time point. It should be about 2:00am (not using DST), so if you > estimate how much took the battle between the Order and the DEs plus > the battle between Dumbledore and Voldy, you can conclude when the > Order arrived. Regardless of estimations and JKR's math abilities, it > is almost impossible to imagine it happening before midnight. Pippin: You determined these endpoints by consulting an almanac or something similar, but would JKR bother to do that? Nowhere else in canon does she approach times or dates with that kind of versimilitude. I guess she would simply rely on her subjective opinion that summer nights in northern Scotland are relatively short. She does make it noticeable that Snape does not immediately become concerned about Harry, however. But should he have? You have stated elsewhere that despite the mountains of reader conjecture, we (and Harry) actually know very little about Snape. But it works both ways. Snape actually does not know all that much about Harry. There is no canon that Snape perceives Harry as someone who gets in trouble because he is too brave and noble for his own good. There is ample canon to show that Snape sees Harry as someone who gets in trouble because he ignores the rules. But the corollary is that as long as Harry is obeying rules, he is not in trouble, and Harry was not breaking any rules by going into the forest with Umbridge. Harry has been eavesdropping on Voldemort's daydreams about the department of mysteries all year. That apparently Voldemort is now entertaining himself by embellishing the daydream with the capture of Sirius (something Snape would all too certainly see as entertaining himself) would not necessarily set off any alarm bells with Snape. I haven't got my canon with me, but I don't believe Harry tried to convey anything about Voldemort trying to get Sirius to obtain a prophecy for him, so Snape doesn't know about that part of it. There is no canon that Snape understands the depth of feeling Harry has for Sirius. He has seen them together only three times. The occlumency lessons dwelt on the fears in Harry's past, not his loves or his fears about the future. And of course, the more we imagine that Snape could have grasped in Harry's brief attempt to communicate by legilimency, the more problematic the contention becomes that Snape and Dumbledore couldn't have communicated on the tower. But I digress. > Neri: . Once he ferries theSlyths outside (no need to investigate them) he has immediate communication with 12GP and probably can even summon immediate enforcements, the way McGonagall's fire in HBP was set to bring back Harry, Ron and Ginny after Christmas (if this isn't possible the enforcement can still apparate just outside the gates. Pippin: If Umbridge can arrange to have the fires at Hogwarts monitored then so can the DE's. They're not safe, certainly not for a message which Snape would find very difficult to explain to Voldemort. If he's told Voldemort that there are no Order members at Hogwarts besides him and McGonagall, then Snape is going to have a hard time accounting for the sudden appearance of the Order at Hogwarts, even if he can conceal that he summoned them. We also know that the Ministry monitors apparation. The weak links are as they have been all along, that Snape and Harry don't understand each other, and that JKR's estimates of time are often inaccurate. Pippin From rozcheeks at adelphia.net Sun Oct 23 01:14:52 2005 From: rozcheeks at adelphia.net (aussiegirl711) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:14:52 -0000 Subject: Who is Fawkes? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142004 Fawkes as you should know (well at least I hope you know) is Dumbledore's (DD) phoenix. I have heard many rumors stating Fawkes is DD's brother. Just as Sirius can change to a dog, DD's brother is able to change into a phoenix. After DD's death, Fawkes is suddenly gone-perhaps to look for the horcruxes or maybe he is going to the actually alive DD? My beliefs on this rumor are still quesey (I have no idea what my opinion is!). If you have any ideas or clues post. Thanks, aussiegirl711 From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 20:13:40 2005 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:13:40 -0400 Subject: None of the Above!Snape (Yet) [Was: OFH! Snape and Harry] Message-ID: <80f25c3a0510231313x7e405e4ch4eb907b74c15ade8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142005 I have hesitated to throw my hat into the Snape fray (or hats, since I could argue many sides simultaneously) on the assumption that it's all been said before. However, I haven't seen what I'm going to say in the current discussions (though there are some similarities to Saraquel's theory), so I will go ahead. My instinctive reading of HBP points me toward OFH!Snape. Reading through the current objections to OFH!Snape (particularly those raised by Jen, Pippin and SSSusan), I am pointed toward a fourth alternative. And so, I posit that Snape is neither DDM! nor ESE! nor OFH! *at this time*. At one time he was ESE! but changed his mind and became DDM! for what he believed were good and valid reasons. His choice each time was sincere. However, at the end of HBP he feels betrayed by Dumbledore -- that he has cast Snape in the Judas position by expecting Snape to kill him -- and he may be alienated from Voldemort as well. In other words, all the characteristics that made him a successful double agent have now left him alone with further choices to make -- the most immediate of which is what to do with Draco, who likely has a large bulls-eye on his back. What Snape chooses to do after apparating outside the Hogwarts grounds and thereafter will determine which camp will be his final home. But that won't happen until Book 7, and the final choice may depend on Harry. In other words this is an argument for None of the Above!Snape (NotA!Snape)-- or maybe Yet to Choose! (YTC!Snape) or Still Not Decided! (SND!Snape). And incidentally, I think this alternative might provide the most Bang for the money, as instead of *discovering* where Snape stands, we might have the opportunity to witness him making his final choice. That's the Cliff's Notes version. The long explanation follows, much of which has been said before, but I found it helpful to lay out all the background. ******* It is not accidental that Snape and Wormtail, the two apparent turncoats of the series, have been placed together in the first scene where we see Snape firsthand playing the double-agent game. While this invites us to draw parallels between the two, there are important differences. Wormtail has no loyalties and no morality. He's happy to line up on any side if the other side will protect his miserable little life. Originally, I OTOH, I thought the difference between the two was *why* they were happy to work for both sides -- while Pettigrew is weak and looking for protection, I initially conceived of OFH!Snape as perceiving himself to be so clever that he could coolly play a high-stakes bluffing game with the aid of his superlative acting skills and his mastery of Occlumency. However, I believe that view does not adequately take into account Snape's emotions. Though in normal circumstances he demonstrates superior acting skills ("I have played my part well"), he does sometimes lose control, and I posit that each time he changed sides it was because he allowed his emotions to get the better of him. Nora (OFH proponent) writes: >But I think we often forget how downright ridiculous Rowling likes to make Snapeykins: spitting and flying into rages hysterical, or exiting stage left pursued by hippogryff. Exactly. He is wont to act on his emotions when certain raw nerves are touched (like when he is called a coward, the one emotional outburst in what otherwise was a masterfully executed escape from Hogwarts). But he doesn't get the recognition for his brinksmanship that the reckless bravery of someone like Sirius will attract, and his position with both sides would be compromised if he tried. Whether avoidance of physical combat suits him or not, he cannot do anything about it because his position with both sides would be compromised if he tried. To go back to the beginning, we have greasy angry Snape who arrived at Hogwarts up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts after experiencing abuse at the hands of his father (if we have correctly interpreted what Harry saw during Occlumency), in need of a father figure. Dumbledore was ready and willing, but Snape took offense of his perceived favoritism to those troublemakers, James and Sirius, culminating in the Prank and the naming of James as Head Boy. I have to believe that it was rage at Dumbledore, combined perhaps with some timely recruiting by Lucius and/or his gang of Slytherins, that led him into Voldemort's lap. Convinced he had been betrayed by Dumbledore, he was ripe for picking by Voldemort, who offered a different sort of father figure. However, once he realized what being a DE was all about -- fawning demonstrations of devotion and hoping to curry favor with foolish deeds -- he must have realized that he was no better off, and probably worse off than he was under Dumbledore, notwithstanding his opportunity to practice the Dark Arts. Thus, while Snape continued to *display* the kind of obsequious devotion that Voldemort demands, I cannot believe he could be anything other than contemptuous of anyone who actually *felt* such devotion (which is why I reject the notion that he has always been ESE!), and he grew increasingly disenchanted with life under Voldemort. But Snape's acting skills are valued, and Voldemort uses him as a covert spy, which eventually places him, nearly a dozen years later, behind the keyhole of a seedy room at the Hogs head, spying on Albus Dumbledore. Snape dutifully brings the information to Voldemort. Then, Snape suffers the last straw when he discovers that Voldemort intends to use his information about the Prophecy to go after Lily Potter, his former Potions comrade. Genuinely sorry for having revealed this information to him (though this must be much later), Snape decides that it's time to rid himself of the company of the fawning DEs and go back to Dumbledore's side. Apparently on Voldemort's orders (though Snape may have suggested it) Snape applies for the DADA position in the summer of 1981, and brings with him the information that Voldemort is after the Potters. Slughorn having just retired, Dumbledore brings him on staff to teach Potions and at the same time begins the planning that leads to the Fidelius Charm. Upon Voldemort's return, on Dumbledore's orders, Snape returns to Voldemort and takes on his double agent role. It is something they have evidently discussed. Perhaps they have even discussed that Snape might have to appear to betray the Order. We know only that Snape "looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely" as he set out to see Voldemort (GoF ch. 36). Conveniently he brings "sixteen years of information on Dumbledore" [this should be fifteen, based on the information he provides to Umbridge in OOP] (HBP ch. 2, OOP ch. 17). They may even have discussed what information Snape would bring. Nevertheless, pulling off the difficult double-agent balancing act (regardless of who he's working for) is a way of proving himself, and I think he derives satisfaction from it. This brings us to the dilemma Jen has raised: I re-read chap. two, honestly attempting to read the scene at > face-value, and immediately found myself convoluting all over the > place, particularly in regard to what we know about Voldemort & > Dumbledore, to reconstruct prior information to meet the face-value > reading of OFH!Snape in this chapter. For example: > [snip] > 3) Snape returned to LV on Dumbledore's orders and although > Voldemort's was initially 'displeased' with his two-hour delay and > had vowed to kill him in the graveyard, Snape was able to explain > his absence well enough for a Voldemort to elevate him above the > DE's who did return to the graveyard immediately. > 4) All Dumbledore required to accept Snape back into the fold at > Hogwarts and in the Order was a 'tale of deepest remorse' and his > trusting nature was fooled into believing Snape's story. This is an issue under any scenario. Both ESE! Snape and DDM!Snape have to fool *somebody* in order to be a double agent. And while it's relatively easy to build a case that Snape felt genuine remorse at how Voldemort acted upon the Prophecy regardless of which side he was on, it's harder to see how DDM!Snape (or OFH!Snape, for that matter) fooled Voldemort. The best I can come up with is that a superb Occlumens trumps a superb Legilimens. Possibly Snape's most unique talent that qualifies him to be a double agent is not his ability to act, but his ability to reveal partial truths. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to speculate that Snape thinks he is still DDM! at this point. And now (finally!) we get to the events in HBP. Interestingly, Snape's double agent role has been devised so that his actions suit the objectives of both his ostensible masters, so my interpretation can be read to support any Snapetheory. 1. Voldemort told Snape about Draco's task before Spinner's End. He says he was told; no further canon needed. 2. Snape told Dumbledore about Draco's task, also before Spinner's End. This is a reasonable inference based on Snape's status as a double agent. Regardless of who he is really working for, he cannot succeed unless he provides each master with useful information. For example, Snape tells Bella that his information led to the death of Emmeline Vance and "helped dispose of Sirius" (though we are led to believe in OOP that it was Kreacher's information that gave Voldemort what he needed). Telling Dumbledore that Voldemort was after him could not have been a particular surprise, so it was information that Snape could likely pass on safely. Likewise, since Snape himself didn't express any confidence that Draco could do the job ("in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds"), the fact that Snape expected to be asked to carry out the task could also have been passed on. In fact, it protects Snape's position for Dumbledore to know in advance; that way he won't become suspicious if Snape appears to be helping Draco. Either way, I think Snape concluded at this point (before the UV) that DD not only expected that Snape would be forced to carry out Draco's mission, but also believed that Snape *should* do it to protect Draco, whose on life was not safe while DD remained alive. Dumbledore may even have suggested to Snape that he should be prepared to do it (conveniently dovetailing with his expectation that it was also Voldemort's intention). Somebody had to kill Dumbledore, and DD himself was determined that it would not be Draco, as his actions on the Tower demonstrate. It is at this point, I think, that Snape's status as DDM! is put to the test. Snape must view the notion that he must be the one to kill Dumbledore (and perhaps rip his soul in the process) as another betrayal. Essentially, he must view any request that he kill Dumbledore as requesting him to play the part of Judas. Knowing that his actions on the Tower will foreclose all other options, Snape is, at the end of HBP, forced to appear as a traitor, at least in the eyes of the Order (even if he wanted to reconnect with the Order, he knows they will not believe him), and he reviles Dumbledore for it, just as Judas reviled Jesus. It does not matter whether Snape and Dumbledore discussed this very possibility before he ever set off to meet Voldemort at the end of GoF. Snape sees himself being boxed into a corner from which escape might be impossible, and he doesn't like it. This all takes place before the UV, as I see it. I've looked at the time line for HBP chapters 1-3. Chapters 1 and 2 take place at least a week after Hogwarts let out for the summer (because the events described by Fudge and the PM clearly had not taken place by the end of term), and chapter 3 takes place two weeks after Hogwarts lets out because we know the duration of Harry's stay at the Dursleys. While it's clear that Chapters 1 and 2 occur the same day, it's unclear how much (if any) time elapses between Spinner's End and the hiring of Slughorn. It's possible that Dumbledore sent the letter to Harry hinting about the Slughorn pilgrimage (three days before his arrival at the Dursleys) before the UV. Incidentally, I think that Dumbledore did not decide to try to lure Slughorn out of retirement to teach potions and give the DADA position to Snape until he received this information. Knowing that Snape was on the hook for Draco's task, it was safe to give Snape the jinxed position, because it was unlikely that Snape would be around beyond the end of the year anyway. 4. Snape was surprised by the Unbreakable Vow and felt trapped by it. Bella's doubts about his loyalty emphasized that Snape's position with Voldemort could be precarious. Therefore, Snape seized the opportunity to give proofs to Bella by demonstrating his willingness to take on the role of watching and supporting Draco (which he already promised DD he would do). He did not expect Narcissa to ask for a UV; perhaps Bella's protests had an effect on her. Snape had no choice but to agree in order to protect his double-agent cover for the time being. Considering that Snape has already commented that he believes Voldemort expects him to carry out Draco's mission in the end, making the UV will likely cost him little -- it only commits him to a deed he expects he may be obligated to carry out anyway. But he twitched and paused before agreeing to it because the UV was the death knell to his double-agent career -- it virtually eliminated the possibility that he'd be able to avoid killing DD and therefore, he would be cut off from DD's side, likely permanently. If this is what a mentor does to his protege, maybe Snape doesn't want a mentor anymore. 5. Snape killed Dumbledore on Voldemort's orders AND with Dumbledore's blessing. Snape feels betrayed by DD for having pushed him over to Voldemort's camp (at least from the POV of the Order). But he is possibly alienated from Voldemort as well. At a minimum he has a moral dilemma: what to do with Draco. Draco has been threatened with death if he did not carry out Voldemort's orders. Four DEs witnessed his failure. Did Snape haul Draco out of Hogwarts so Draco just to hand him over to Voldemort to be killed? I think Snape sees enough of himself in Draco that he would hesitate to do that. But unless he does that he will be at odds with Voldemort as well. So at this point Snape is out of a job, and finds himself alienated from both sides unless he hands Draco over. He has choices to make, and the first one is what to do with Draco. If he takes Draco and hides him, he has more choices to make in Book 7. And since this series is about Harry, it seems likely that he will be involved somehow in those choices. Debbie who will learn someday to write a short post [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 23 20:28:28 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:28:28 EDT Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20Interpretation=20(was=20Re:=20Dumbledore's=20"?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93peaceful=20expression=C3=A2=E2=82=AC?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=9D=3F?= Message-ID: <1fe.ce9d31a.308d4c6c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142006 Neri: ...the inconsistency is only with Dumbledore's very vague and hole-riddled explanations that everybody acted "at once". Only if everybody acted at once, how come Harry is having a public collapse, breaks into Umbridge's office, reports a mind attack by Voldemort, taken at wand point to the Forbidden Forest, closely saved from a herd of rampaging centaurs by a rampaging giant, takes a flight all the way from Scotland to London on invisible horses, enters a breached and deserted Ministry, tours the wonders of the Department of Mystery and has a chat with a bunch of Death Eaters, and he still beats the Order to the mark? Calling this a "math-based inconsistency" is a bit of an understatement. Julie: Okay, how about general inconsistencies ;-) One thing to remember is that JKR has stated she wrote the end of OotP in a hurry, to get it out for publication on time. So this would be one place where inconsistencies might logically pop up, especially as *so much* was going on. It's not the least inconceivable to me that JKR would have lost track of the timing, or that the editors, considering the size and complexity of OotP, would not have done the math here (they were under time restraints, while we have plenty of time to fine-tooth comb through the books). Which does bring me to a thought, and now I'm curious. Did you (or anyone else) notice this missing time during the DoM events on your first read of OotP, or was it only on later perusal that you (or someone else here) first noticed? I personally didn't notice it until the subject was broached on this list. > Julie, earlier: > But within canon there is > NO later reference to validate any plot significance. Dumbledore > never brings it up, no one ever does, Neri: This isn't accurate. The question of who is responsible for Sirius' death is certainly discussed. Harry brings it up immediately and Dumbledore nobly shoulders it all himself while avoiding a satisfying recount of the Order's point of view. Julie: I was referring to the missing time. To my recollection, no one, including Dumbledore, has actually referred to it (along the lines of wondering why it took so long for the Order to arrive at the DoM). > Julie earlier: > not then and not later (a later > possibility being one of the Order--say McGonagall--commenting > after Snape has killed Dumbledore, "I always wondered why it took > Snape so long to summon the Order to the Department of Mysteries. > He must have done it on purpose, to help Voldemort get to Harry!" or > some such.) Neri: As I wrote here before, that would have been a bit cumbersome writing for JKR, because it isn't easy to explain the timeline issue in a single sentence, or even in a single paragraph, and it was also slightly redundant anyway, seeing that Snape had just stunned a teacher, AKed the headmaster and ran away with a bunch of DEs. Julie: Perhaps, but it seems to me it might also be a time when reasons you wondered if Dumbledore's trust in Snape was wise might pop into your head. And if there had been any doubt about Snape's punctuality in notifying the Order about the DoM, this seems like a time that doubt might resurface. > Julie earlier: > Neither does Snape mention it at a time he might be > expected to, during his self-defense speech to Bellatrix ("I also > delayed the Order's arrival at the Department of Mysteries. It's not > my fault you and the others couldn't do your part before the Order > arrived"). Neri: It wouldn't be good politic for Snape to mention it at that point, because it would be tantamount to admitting that he *did* warn the Order in the end, and Bella would immediately accuse him of failing the operation. However, Snape does claim a part in getting rid of Black. Julie: Good point. Though even if Snape did deliberately delay his warning, he's a bit too impressed with himself if he really thinks he had a part in getting rid of Sirius. Yes, he baited Sirius about being a coward, but he in no way lured Sirius to the DoM. And he couldn't influence Sirius to take Bella too lightly at the DoM. In retrospect, he can claim he had a hand in it, but Sirius would have done everything exactly the same way whether Snape baited him or not. Thus, Snape's deluded about his own importance, or he's simply padding his DE image for Bella. I suspect the latter. > Ceridwen: > In Spinner's End, page 29 US, Bellatrix seems to think the Order showed > up much too soon: > "They were joined, as you very well know, by half of the Order before > long!" snarled Bellatrix. > > Snape doesn't say anything to this, as Bellatrix moves on to why he > doesn't reveal the location of Order headquarters, and it's just left > lying in the dust. 'Before long' indicates something less than five > hours, to me. Neri: Bellatrix has a good personal reason to shorten the time she and nine other DEs couldn't beat six unqualified teenagers. In addition, it seems Bellatrix only refers to the time since the DEs surprised Harry in the DoM, not to the flight from Scotland and the adventures in the Forbidden Forest (I'm not sure she even knows about this part). Julie: At the moment I think it's probably a moot point. The real question is whether the missing time (3.5 hrs or 5 hrs) is significant to the plot. And I don't think it is. I think JKR just got a bit sloppy here, in her rush to finish OotP. She liked the imagery of the times she used (e.g., dawn as the incident ends), and didn't notice the time lapses. And though the time lapse is essentially canon even if it might have been unintended by JKR, I can think of a reason Snape might have delayed notifying the Order, one that has already been broached--It took him awhile to finally realize Harry had gone to the DoM. This delay in Snape's realization is very consistent with his character, especially with the argument that Snape doesn't really understand Harry (for instance, when he thinks Harry closing his mind and acquiring the most skills possible is what will allow him to defeat Voldemort, when Dumbledore knows--as we do--that Harry capacity for love is what will eventually defeat Dumbledore. Snape's general lack of empathy is pretty much agreed upon (I think). Snape sees everything from his own POV, and is rarely able to put himself in someone else's shoes (rarely, because I did see a glimmer of that attribute during the Occlumency lessons, when he got a good look at Harry's past home life). This inability to see the world around him from anyone else's perspective is part of the reason why he's not a very good teacher. He expects his students to acquire skills with the same ease he does, expects them to apply themselves to the degree he would, etc. If they don't, he has no concept of why, beyond the assumption that they are either stupid (Neville) or recalcitrant (Harry), or both (Harry again). It would be the same with realizing Harry's intentions in OotP. Snape would never consider going to the DoM, he would never fall for the trick Harry did, so he doesn't immediately conceive that Harry would do so. As time continues to pass and Harry doesn't appear, Snape eventually has to think outside his box a bit, and consider other alternatives to the "obvious." He actually has to think "What would Potter do? What would *I* do if I was a stupid, headstrong boy overly impressed with my own sense of importance? If I actually felt some affection for that self-destructive idiot Black, and thought he might be in danger, even though all logic indicates that I'm being cleverly manipulated because I've allowed my mind to be an open book to the Dark Lord. Hmmm, what would I do??" Anyway, it could take Snape a while to get to this point. If we need an explanation for that "missing time" (though I expect JKR doesn't, and won't ever bring it up--unless she reads HPfGU!), this is as good a one as Snape deliberately waiting out of malice, and it is more consistent with the lack of any later reference or suspicion about the missing time. IMO, Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 23 20:40:36 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:40:36 EDT Subject: Harry and the Half-Blood Prince, Part One Message-ID: <12c.68f52df8.308d4f44@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142007 Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't JKR say some time ago that she wanted to name the second HP book "HP and the Half-Blood Prince," but once she revised the story and took out the parts that related to the Half-Blood Prince the name no longer made sense, thus she renamed it "HP and the Chamber of Secrets"? (HP standing for Harry Potter ;-). This has got me to thinking exactly how the Half-Blood Prince plot fit into book Two originally. The time seems wrong to reveal an unexpected communion between Harry and the HBP, as Harry and Snape haven't yet built up the *truly* antagonistic relationship that is in full bloom by the beginning of HBP. And if Harry became a sudden genius at Potions in Book 2, where would that leave their classroom relationship in later books? Does Harry just go back to being a mediocre Potions student once the book is taken from him? (Snape would certainly be very suspicious of a mediocre potions student suddenly becoming quite accomplished in the subject, and it wouldn't take him long to figure out why.) Or would Harry manage to hold onto the book yet not learn the true identityof the HBP until Book 6? (Which doesn't really make obvious sense either). I think the HPB must have figured very differently in Book 2, though I'm not sure how. As it is in Book 6, it doesn't fit. I have considered whether *Tom Riddle* might have originally been the Half-Blood Prince, considering his ancestry is very similar to Snape's. Additionally, Tom thinks he's *that* much better than everyone else, and he could consider his direct descendancy from Salazar Slytherin to indicate a sort of royal status. But I don't really know. It's a question I'd certainly like to ask JKR. In the meantime, does anyone else have any theories? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 22:37:56 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:37:56 -0000 Subject: Interpretation (was Re: Dumbledore's "peaceful expression"?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142008 >Since Tonks' patronus could tell, that she had found Harry, I > think the Patronuses have a method to make themselves audible (or > maybe they are using a sign language???). And if Snape's Patronus IS a Unicorn, it would have to tap the whole thing out with his hoof, so add another half-hour... Sorry, I just found that image irresistible.. the Patroni are a lovely idea, but there's a Flipper/Lassie/Skippy element to them being used as messengers-- "what is boy? Did Harry fall into the quicksand?" - Sydney, irrelevantly From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 22:13:03 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (gav_fiji) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:13:03 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?The_blond_Death_Eater_=96_A_further_appraisal_with_conclusions?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142009 A little while back I posted an article entitled "Bagman as loyal Death Eater and big blond" (#141482). In view of certain questions raised with me both here and at the Chamber of Secrets forums I now offer another look. I remain firm in my views that Ludovic Bagman is the blond Death Eater variously described as huge, enormous, massive or big (herein referred to as the BBDE). For reasons that I hope will become clear I am no longer convinced that Bagman assisted Barty Crouch Jnr., except perhaps as a back up, in his plot in GOF, however I still believe that Bagman was aware of the plot, even if he did not actively encourage it, as I had postulated earlier. Due credit is given to the following for pointing out certain difficulties with my earlier article: (i) Username destany from Chamber of Secrets forum. (ii) Christina, Carol and Valky from HPGfU (iii) Username unrecalled from Chamber of Secrets forum. All references in this article come from the Bloomsbury hardback editions of GOF and HBP. As with my earlier piece I will start with relevant known facts regarding Bagman (slightly amended), which are: (i) Ludovic Bagman was accused of activities relating to the Death Eaters, which are unspecified, in the aftermath of Voldwar 1. He is found guilty of passing information to Rookwood and basically let off due to his popularity as a Quidditch player. Harry believes Bagman to be a Death Eater and this is not contradicted by Dumbledore. I, therefore, conclude that Bagman was and is a Death Eater. Further evidence is set out below. (ii) He played Beater for Wimbourne Wasps and England. This is suggestive of his size as Beaters are consistently described as large. (iii) He disappeared after the third task in GOF and has not been heard from again. Two other suspects will be considered, either of who could be the BBDE, but about whom we do not have enough canon evidence to make any concrete conclusions. They are Otto Bagman and Goyle Senior. This is presented for purposes of identification and I, contrary to an editorial on Mugglenet entitled "The Enormous Blond Death Eater", do not believe that the BBDE will be of any future great import in book 7 except insofar as the Death Eaters will also somehow have to be finally dealt with by the WW in order to restore order once Voldemort is killed / neutralised. The starting point for this discussion is the descriptions of the BBDE by various parties in Chapters 28 and 29 of HBP. I have concluded that the perspective of each character in describing the BBDE is important to establishing exactly how large he is, so now for your enlightenment, he is described thus: (i) Through Harry's filter when first meeting the BBDE he is said to be enormous ("Harry saw Tonks fighting an enormous blond wizard" [Chapter Twenty Eight ? The Flight of the Prince, page 558] and "I know, I'm on it!" said Harry, aiming a hex from the floor at the enormous blond Death Eater [page 559]) (ii) Again from Harry's POV "he could just make out three figures racing across the lawn, heading for the gates beyond which they could Disapparate ? by the looks of them, the huge blond Death Eater " (page 560) (iii) Also from Harry's POV, but with Hagrid to compare against "the blond Death Eater was aiming curse after curse at the gamekeeper" (page 561). (iv) Twice again described as huge and once again as enormous from Harry's POV (pages 562 and 563). (v) Ginny tells us in Chapter Twenty Nine ? The Phoenix Lament on page 571 "And a Death Eater's dead, he got hit by a Killing Curse the huge blond one was firing off everywhere-". She also says huge in her description on page 578. (vi) Ron on page 578 says "and that massive Death Eater was still firing off jinxes all over the place" (vii) Lastly Lupin on page 579 says: "Well, the big Death Eater had just fired off a hex that caused half the ceiling to fall in". There are, therefore, no less than five perspectives on the BBDE, two from Harry and one each from Ginny, Ron and Remus. Remus, who is the only fully-grown wizard, says the BBDE is big, while the three students say he is variously enormous, huge or massive. It is interesting that when seen against Hagrid he is described only as the blond Death Eater, in my view because in comparison to Hagrid, who we know to be gargantuan, he is of relatively normal looking size, or to put it another way of manageable proportions. The only people in canon with Death Eater associations who have been described as big or large or tall are Ludovic Bagman and Goyle Snr. (apart from Crabbe Snr., who is currently in Azkaban probably with a baby head unless he has been cured or evaded capture somehow). Despite speculation on whether brothers are similar (and I know that myself and my brother bear no resemblance to each other whatever other than our height) there is no support in canon to suggest that Otto Bagman is a big man like his brother. In fact canon would oppose that viewpoint in light of the Weasley boys (except for hair colour), the Creeveys and the Dumbledores (while conceding that both Dumbledores have been described as tall). Suspect One - Ludovic Bagman (LB) The addition to my earlier piece in relation to Bagman is that this time I am starting from LB as the youngest we have met him, that is during his trial, until his appearance, in my view, as the BBDE. The initial contact with Crouch Jnr. has also been revised, as it was provably false. Only new material is addressed here and my other reasoning is contained in the original article. Additionally I should spell out, as certain responses have focussed on the loyalty of LB rather than on his identity as the BBDE, that my main reasoning for concluding that LB is the BBDE is the descriptive material we were handed about him in GOF. Based on description alone LB is the only viable suspect to fit all descriptive details that we are given about the BBDE in HBP. A younger LB is accused of "charges relating to the activities of the Death Eaters". (GOF Chapter Thirty ? The Pensieve page 514). Note the plurality here suggesting that there was more than one count on LB's case, although he is pronounced guilty only of giving information to Rookwood, who he explains is a friend of his father's. The description of LB at his trial is that "he was tall and lean and muscly" (GOF Chapter Thirty ? The Pensieve page 514), in other words a typical Beater. > Valky has stated elsewhere: > I would say, that the rattling chains indicate Bagman is certainly *partially* guilty of the crime he is on trial for, if indeed that is what they do (and I tend to agree with Carol, that is what they do). In which case other misdeeds such as cheating on his bets, which we *don't know* was happening during VWI, might not have anything to do with the guilt that is implied in the Pensieve. Bagman is on trial for aiding Death Eaters, and the chains rattle ominously as though they *want* to lock him up for something, but he's up on the wrong charge, so they can't. The charge he should be up on, in that case *could* be that he was a Death Eater but one that doesn't necessarily always *aid them*. All befitting of an ex-beater who 'accidentally' knocks out / kills his so called cohorts in battle. The balance of my argument for LB as the BBDE is found in my earlier article, and particularly the descriptive matters that suggest to me that Bagman is a large, powerfully built, blond haired man. These will not be repeated as they are fully addressed there (#141482) I offer some further support gleaned from a further read through of GOF. This is in respect of the description of LB amongst the Champions and with particular reference to Chapter Eighteen ? The Weighing of the Wands. We have been told that a wizard's or witch's wand is a good indicator of his or her size. The three champions' wands (I leave Harry out because he is not fully physically developed in GOF) are described with their lengths on pages 270 and 271. Cedric has a 12 ? inch wand, Krum a 10 ? inch wand and Fleur a 9 ? inch wand. This suggests that Cedric is rather tall, perhaps just a little shorter than Dumbledore, and that the other two are of fairly average size. LB is described as a "slightly overblown cartoon character, standing amid all the pale-faced champions" on page 305 (Chapter Twenty ? The First Task). Despite disagreement with Carol I maintain that LB should be interpreted to be rather larger than all the champions, and if this supposition were correct then LB would certainly be a huge, nay perhaps enormous, man. Other than my time line being off in the previous piece, in that at the point where I contended that LB had met Barty Jnr. in the woods Barty Jnr. was not yet aware of the plot against Harry, I still maintain that LB is a Death Eater even if he may be a little reluctant. Further support for this contention has come to light during my reread and I present it as quotations first and will expand thereafter. (i) Bagman arrives where the Ministry wizards have just stunned Winky and Barty Jnr. and we are told `Comprehension dawned suddenly on Bagman's round, shiny face; he looked up at the skull, down at Winky and then at Mr. Crouch. "No!" he said. "Winky? Conjure the Dark Mark? She wouldn't know how! She'd need a wand for a start!"' (GOF Chapter Nine ? The Dark Mark, page 119) >From this I take it that LB knows how to conjure the Dark Mark and it is suggestive of his knowing the ways of the Death Eaters and probably that he is one. (ii) Mr. Weasley, a few pages later (page 128) then helpfully tells us: "But I'll tell you this it was only the Death Eaters who ever knew how to conjure it." Further indicating that a person who, as LB clearly seemed to, knew how to conjure the Dark Mark is a Death Eater. (iii) In Chapter Seventeen ? The Four Champions, after fake Moody has been talking about how Harry got into the Quatriwizard Tournament with his thoughts that someone is out to kill Harry on page 245 it says: `Ludo Bagman, who was looking very anxious indeed "Moody, old man what a thing to say!"' In my view LB is here trying to deflect suspicion away from what fake Moody outlined as the circumstances behind Harry's entry into the Tournament and the reasons for it. It seems to me that Bagman and fake Moody are deliberately attempting to direct us to look for alternative suspects (and of course at this point Karkaroff and Snape are still not cleared). This may appear contradictory of an earlier statement (and I'm not about to tell you which), but for a thoughtful respondent it would not destroy my argument. (iv) We are also handed information about LB by Rita Skeeter in Chapter Twenty Four ? Rita Skeeter's Scoop. Rita was at LB's trial and would know of the circumstances leading up to it. She comments on page 391 "he was always a bad liar." This certainly could lead one to the conclusion that Rita disbelieved LB about his excuse at his trial, if not for other possible lies. I conclude from this that Rita supports me in my contention hat LB is and was a Death Eater. (v) Rita also says on page 392 "I know things about Ludo Bagman that would make your hair curl ". Surely this could not only be referring to his being a dupe in passing information to Rookwood. There must be far more to it than that and it adds further support to the conclusion that LB is a Death Eater. (vi) Moving back to Chapter Thirty - The Pensieve when Harry is questioning Dumbledore about all he has seen on page 524 we find this exchange: "Er," he said, "Mr. Bagman " " has never been accused of any Dark activity since," said Dumbledore calmly. It transpires that this is exactly what Dumbledore says regarding Severus Snape as well. With what we now know of Severus we could not possibly say that he (Severus) was not a Death Eater. Whether Severus has renounced his position or not is obviously the subject of continued heated debate here and elsewhere. To me this quotation is further support for LB being a Death Eater and yes I know it would apply equally to all Death Eaters from Voldemort's fall until his return, as they have been very careful not to be locked away like so many of their fellows. Why should Bagman be any different? (vii) Voldemort in the graveyard when speaking to Lucius Malfoy says something quite unusual, it is on page 564 of Chapter Thirty Three ? The Death Eaters: "And yet you ran from my Mark, when a faithful Death Eater sent it into the sky last summer?" "Yes, I know all about that, Lucius you have disappointed me I expect more faithful service in future." How did Voldemort know that Lucius ran from the Dark Mark? I suggest that LB informed him at some point because LB himself joined the muggle-baiting Death Eaters. He only rejoined the Ministry wizards quite some time after they had arrived at the scene of the crime of conjuring the Mark. He would know that the Death Eaters dispersed when the Mark was seen in that circumstance. The objections that have been raised regarding Veritaserum and Barty Jnr. not mentioning LB while under its influence are easily answered. Barty Jnr. only answers direct questions under Veritaserum. No one questioning him suspects LB and he is, therefore, not asked any questions regarding LB. This would explain why LB is not mentioned by Barty Jnr. Also LB could quite easily have gone to the graveyard as he is not present when Harry returns, thus confirming my earlier suggestion that LB disappeared as soon as Harry and Cedric did, while pausing only long enough to ascertain what the goblins' decision on the winner was. Finally on LB it has been stated that Harry and at least Tonks saw his face. Tonks because she was battling him and Harry because he sent a hex at the BBDE's face. In response to this I say that Bagman has changed in two years, two years in which he has been dodging goblins, and has most probably changed somewhat in appearance, that is regained some of his former athleticism. Additionally Tonks may only have seen Bagman in passing previously, being a junior Auror compared to LB being a Head of Department during GOF. Harry's glimpse of the BBDE is fleeting and would be insufficient for him to conclude who the BBDE was. Also the Death Eaters are in the habit of wearing hoods and these would conceal their identities further. After all the hair, which is really the only description other than the size we have to work on, if long may show outside the hood. LB is my favourite for the title of BBDE. That he is not in film four only supports my view that the BBDE by himself is not that important to the resolution of book 7. LB will be in film 7 if not film 6. Suspect Two ? Otto Bagman (OB) The only reason to support OB as the BBDE is that it is supposed he is similar to his brother and he has been in trouble for possession of a lawnmower with unnatural powers. If this constitutes proof, as has been suggested, then I should immediately change profession from lawyer to something else, as this is flies in the face of every principle I have and constitutes no proof at all. Suspect Three ? Goyle Senior In the matter of Goyle Senior as the BBDE I defer to Carol and refer those interested to her article on the issue posted earlier (#141801), the starting point for which was my suggestion that Goyle should be considered a suspect. I am prepared to defend my theory further so over to you. Goddlefrood in anticipation of attack From catlady at wicca.net Mon Oct 24 00:11:05 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:11:05 -0000 Subject: ..../Wizarding Food/.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > We've heard of Agatha Timms's eel farm, but the eels could be for > potion ingredients rather than for food. I've found the reference for which I was looking last night. It's in OoP, when the Trio go to St. Mungo's: << They walked along the corridor, through a set of double doors and found a rickety staircase lined with more portraits of brutal-looking Healers. As they climbed it, the various Healers called out to them, diagnosing odd complaints and suggesting horrible remedies. Ron was seriously affronted when a medieval wizard called out that he clearly had a bad case of spattergroit. 'And what's that supposed to be?' he asked angrily, as the Healer pursued him through six more portraits, shoving the occupants out of the way. ' 'Tis a most grievous affliction of the skin, young master, that will leave you pockmarked and more gruesome even than you are now ? ' 'Watch who you're calling gruesome!' said Ron, his ears turning red. ' ? the only remedy is to take the liver of a toad, bind it tight about your throat, stand naked at the full moon in a barrel of eels' eyes ? '>> That is a LOT of eels' eyes. What percentage of the natural population of eels would have to be fished from the wild to provide so many eyes? I think it would be better to use farmed eels. Anyway, the nonsensical diagnoses and nonsensical prescriptions of the medieval Healers are clearly a parody of medieval Muggles, with prescriptions like tying a dead mouse around your neck to cure a cold. But I hate to think that wizards, who can keep track of the date of founding of a business through the changes of calendar that have occured since 273 BC (from my memory, which might not be able to keep track!), and could already make talking portraits in the Middle Ages, would have forgotten their Hellenistic science as easily as Muggles did. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 00:50:06 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:50:06 -0000 Subject: Communication by Patronus (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142011 Hickengruendler wrote: > >Since Tonks' patronus could tell, that she had found Harry, I think the Patronuses have a method to make themselves audible (or maybe they are using a sign language???). > Sydney responded: > And if Snape's Patronus IS a Unicorn, it would have to tap the whole thing out with his hoof, so add another half-hour... > > Sorry, I just found that image irresistible.. the Patroni are a lovely idea, but there's a Flipper/Lassie/Skippy element to them being used as messengers-- "what is boy? Did Harry fall into the quicksand?" Carol adds: On a more serious note, does anyone have a plausible idea of how the ghostlike Patroni deliver their messages? I envision a wizard silently composing a very brief message, one or two sentences, and the Patronus carrying that conjured message in its mouth or claws and dropping it in the hands of the person addressed. After the message is read, it decomposes into a puff of air, shades of the old "Mission Impossible" TV series. Somehow, the Patronus, like an owl, knows which person to deliver the message to--and yet Tonks's new Patronus delivered a message intended for Hagrid to Snape, clearly recognizing him as an Order member. JKR's rather detailed response to the communication question on her website really doesn't explain the mechanism by which the messages are delivered. Does anyone else have any ideas? Do we have any canon at all as to how this process works? It seems to me that the method is actually rather cumbersome, especially if the Patronus doesn't arrive instantly. They could only carry on a very limited correspondence, not the lengthy conversation that's possible via the Floo network. How much could Snape communicate to Sirius (and any other Order members who were present at 12 GP)? It seems to me that he'd *have* to use the fireplace to explain about Harry going into the forest with Umbridge once he knew what was going on. (He might have used it to communicate with DD as well, since he knew that DD was coming to GP. DD almost certainly arrived by Floo powder and talked to Kreacher in person. He couldn't have communicated with *him* by Patronus.) So it requires only a wand and is an Anti-Dark Arts device. How does either of those attributes make it an effective means of communication? I'd rather use a cell phone--and I hate cell phones. Carol From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 01:24:51 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:24:51 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?SW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gKHdhcyBSZTogRHVtYmxl?= =?iso-8859-1?B?ZG9yZSdzICLDouKCrMWTcGVhY2VmdWwgZXhwcmVz?= =?iso-8859-1?B?cy4uLg==?= In-Reply-To: <9.4eeb969d.308c3486@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142012 > Sherrie here: > > According to the tables I just checked, sunset in mid- to late June of 1996 > was just after 10:00 PM (approximately 10:07, if you want to be precise). If > the "earliest light of day" is around 2:00 AM (which makes some sense, since > sunrise is listed around 4:32 AM), that leaves a total of around four hours > for the full sequence of events, from the trip into the woods to the return to > Dumbledore's office (and, IIRC, at least some portion of the conversation > between Harry & Dumbledore). > Neri: First, the trip to the woods was *before* sunset, and thus adding to your above four hours. Sunset is when Harry & Co. take off on thestrals from the woods, as canon notes more than once in the beginning of chapter 34. Secondly, you are mixing numbers from two different tables. The 2:00 start of civil daylight is taken from a source that doesn't use Daylight Saving Time, according to which sunset was slightly after 9:00pm. Your source apparently does use DST, which is why you get sunset at 10:00pm, and thus first civil daylight in your table should be 3:00am, not 2:00am (otherwise you get 2.5 hours from begin civil daylight to your sunrise at 4:32am, which sounds very unlikely). So any way you look at it you still get at least five hours. > Sherrie: > Into that time frame, we squeeze the trip into the forest, the "discussion" > with the centaurs, the flight on the thestrals, the trip down to the DoM, > exploration of the Brain Room, the Veil Chamber & the Time Room, searching the > Prophecy Room, the running battle with the Death Eaters, the escape from the > DoM, Dumbledore's duel with Voldemort, the arrival of Fudge & Co. in the > lobby, and Dumbledore's discussion with Fudge while Harry trashed his office. (I > don't have my books with me, so again it's IIRC, but I don't think Harry > noticed the light in the sky until Dumbledore had already returned.) Pretty busy > four hours. Neri: As I noted above, you indeed squeeze too much actions into too short a time. Also, Harry noticed "a cool line of pale green along the horizon: Dawn was approaching" in the second paragraph of chapter 37, immediately after he was sent to Dumbledore's office before Dumbledore also returned. Considerable work and thought was invested by several people to reconstruct the timeline of that night, and analyze what could or should Snape have done. If anybody is really interested, I'd suggest you first read chapters 32-37 in OotP again carefully, paying attention to the times and order of events. Then I'd recommend reading some of: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/107919 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/107951 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108016 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108018 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108037 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108055 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108146 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108223 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108227 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108308 Neri From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Oct 24 01:24:34 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:24:34 -0000 Subject: Communication by Patronus (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142013 Carol adds: > On a more serious note, does anyone have a plausible idea of how the > ghostlike Patroni deliver their messages? houyhnhnm: I don't know how plausible it is. No canon support whatsoever except for the fact that patroni are bright and silvery, but I imagine a message being incorporated into the happy thought that produces the patronus. I imagine when a patronus is intercepted it is drawn into the wand of the Witch or Wizard who receives it, and then put into the head like a thought being retrieved from a pensieve. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 01:47:29 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:47:29 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142014 > Pippin: > You determined these endpoints by consulting an almanac or something > similar, but would JKR bother to do that? Nowhere else in canon does she > approach times or dates with that kind of versimilitude. I guess she would > simply rely on her subjective opinion that summer nights in northern Scotland > are relatively short. > Neri: JKR has lived several years in Scotland and she knows that sunset in the summer there is around 10pm (using DST now). This is obvious from the PoA climax, which canonically takes place from 9:00pm to midnight. Buckbeak's execution was scheduled to sunset (Ch. 16, both in Hagrid's note and in Ron's words). The trio wait until dinner is absolutely over and all students had left the great hall (canon). They go out of the castle exactly at 9:00pm (canon) and then we get an interesting sentence: "The sun was already sinking behind the Forbidden Forest, gilding the top branches of the trees." Compare this to the sentence in OotP, beginning of Ch. 33: "The sun was falling towards the top of the trees in the Forbidden Forest", *and* Harry still hearing the students eating dinner in the great hall. This establishes that in JKR's privet clock Umbridge takes Harry to the forest before 9:00. Back to PoA: Immediately after Buckbeak's supposed execution we are indeed told "The very last rays of the setting sun were casting a bloody light over the long-shadowed grounds." (PoA, beginning of Ch. 17). Also during the second turn around the time travel loop, immediately after TT!Harry and TT!Hermione steal Buckbeak we are told "The sun was setting now" (Ch. 21). Conclusion: when it's important to the plot JKR is consistent and exact about the timing. The relation between dinnertime, the sun's position and the time of sunset is consistent over both PoA and OotP. What we indeed don't know from canon is when JKR thinks is the first light of dawn. However, I simply can't believe she's so ignorant and math-challenged to think it's as early as 1:00am (in realty it's around 3:00am using DST). So even in JKR's privet clock it should be *at least* 4 hours, probably more than that. > Pippin: > She does make it noticeable that Snape does not immediately become > concerned about Harry, however. But should he have? You have stated > elsewhere that despite the mountains of reader conjecture, we (and Harry) > actually know very little about Snape. But it works both ways. Snape actually > does not know all that much about Harry. > > There is no canon that Snape perceives Harry as someone who gets in > trouble because he is too brave and noble for his own good. There is ample > canon to show that Snape sees Harry as someone who gets in trouble > because he ignores the rules. But the corollary is that as long as Harry is > obeying rules, he is not in trouble, and Harry was not breaking any rules by > going into the forest with Umbridge. > Neri: I don't see why is it relevant how Snape sees Harry. The Order's top missions in OotP are to guard Harry and to guard the prophecy. This is made clear from the very beginning, when Harry is nearly assassinated because the Order's guard had left his watch, and repeated many times throughout the book. Snape was the last Order member left at Hogwarts. His obvious duty was to keep an eye on Harry. Certainly when Harry has a public collapse, reports messages from Voldemort in the middle of the day, and is held by the witch who had attacked Hagrid and McGonagall just the day before that. > Pippin: > Harry has been eavesdropping on Voldemort's daydreams about the > department of mysteries all year. That apparently Voldemort is now > entertaining himself by embellishing the daydream with the capture of Sirius > (something Snape would all too certainly see as entertaining himself) would > not necessarily set off any alarm bells with Snape. > Neri: In the final talk Dumbledore said: "And then you saw Rookwood, who worked in the Department of Mysteries before his arrest, telling Voldemort what we had known all along ? that the prophecies held in the Ministry of Magic are heavily protected. Only the people to whom they refer can lift them from the shelves without suffering madness: in this case, either Voldemort himself would have to enter the Ministry of Magic, and risk revealing himself at last ? or else you would have to take it for him. It became a matter of even greater urgency that you should master Occlumency." Dumbledore couldn't know that Harry had seen this in Voldy's mind unless Snape had told him. Ergo, Snape knew that after the DEs escape from Azkaban the risk of Voldy using Harry to retrieve the prophecy is much greater. And we haven't even started to consider what Snape knew because he was an agent in the DEs camp. Even if Snape thought Harry doesn't want or can't go to the DoM by himself, surely he should realize that Harry alone with Umbridge away from the castle is not a good thing? I can imagine a lot about Snape, but not that he's stupid or na?ve. > Pippin: > If Umbridge can arrange to have the fires at Hogwarts monitored then so can > the DE's. They're not safe, certainly not for a message which Snape would > find very difficult to explain to Voldemort. If he's told Voldemort that there are > no Order members at Hogwarts besides him and McGonagall, then Snape is > going to have a hard time accounting for the sudden appearance of the Order > at Hogwarts, even if he can conceal that he summoned them. > Neri: Tonks can be easily disguised. So was Sirius. Nobody had to know that there are Order members at Hogwarts. Not that Voldy should be surprised that there are. A new enforcement to replace Hagrid and McGonagall would be expected, and no DE would expect Snape to prevent it. It is pretty much established that Umbridge's fire was not monitored. If it was, Umbridge would have known what Harry told Sirius and Lupin after the first time he used it, and when capturing Harry she would have first listened to the "recording" of what he said before questioning him. Are you saying the Order left Snape as their only man at Hogwarts with his only safe mean of communication a slow patronus, when all signs pointing that Voldemort's attack is imminent? Again credibility is stretched very thin. There must have been a weak link, and the relationships between Harry and Snape weren't (or at least shouldn't have been) relevant from Snape's PoV. > Pippin: > We also know that the Ministry monitors apparation. Neri: We do? Then I must have missed it. Can you supply the canon? Neri From lipa at pobox.com Mon Oct 24 01:50:31 2005 From: lipa at pobox.com (Lipa) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:50:31 +0200 Subject: Who is Fawkes? References: Message-ID: <005e01c5d83d$52d5dfc0$eb04810a@eowyn> No: HPFGUIDX 142015 Aussiegirl711 wrote: > After DD's > death, Fawkes is suddenly gone-perhaps to look for the > horcruxes or maybe he is going to the actually alive DD? I think that Fawkes is a real phoenix. We saw his (her?) rebirth from ashes, we saw the healing power. We have been told that Fawkes belonged to DD, not to Hogwarts, we saw the office of the previous Headmaster without Fawkes. DD is dead (I believe that he really is dead) and Fawkes has no reason to stay. I hope to see in Book 7 if the Order is somehow connected to Fawkes (why is it called the Order of the Phoenix?). Harry could certainly do with some additional magic. Lipa From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 01:24:03 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What will happen to The Order of the Phoenix/LOTR spoilers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051024012403.95034.qmail@web34902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142016 saraquel_omphale wrote: "The Order is now leaderless and perhaps we could criticise DD for not ensuring that there was a clear second in command to take over. I really don't think that Harry will take over the lead of the Order. He is young, inexperienced and has already refused to tell McGonegall what's going on. DD has pretty well isolated him (apart from Ron and Hermione) intending him to go on alone. Harry knows this and IMO has already determined that he will fly separately from the Order but IMO, will probably call on the skills of various members of it ? eg Bill the cursebreaker. Although we know that for JKR it is important in the genre, for the hero to go alone into the valley of death without the 600, but she has to find a reason for it in the story. My assumption has been that DD suspects someone is telling porky pies about their allegiances and is spying for LV ? but that's another thread altogether, so ignoring that for the moment, the questions are, 1 If there is to be a new leader who will emerge to do it? 2 Is there a possibility that the Order as we know it will fall apart?" CH3ed: Nice analysis by Saraquel! I think I will give McGonnagal the benefit of a doubt that she is quite capable of leading the Order, though. She had been a good right-hand for DD because that was her role. I think she is decisive and strong enough, though perhaps not as intuitive and imaginative like DD. I think ---but I wouldn't bet on it because I remember reading from somewhere that JKR hasn't read Lord of the Ring (or has read but not finished it), and anyway she doesn't copy other books--- that Harry and the Order might go their separate ways performing different functions on the same side of the war like Frodo and the Fellowship did after the Fall of Rauros. I think Harry, Ron and Hermione (and perhaps Neville and Luna?) would be going after the horcruxes and then LV, while the Order under McGonnagal keep the DEs and LV busy on the side, serving as diversions. That would work well for Harry's mission as it is best if LV has to face Harry in the climax of book 7 not knowing that all of his horcruxes have been destroyed.... so he would be a bit prone to be over-confident (which should work in Harry's favor). So it might turn out to be a wise move that Harry didn't tell McGonnagal what DD told him. That lessens the possibilities of leaks that would tip LV off to check on his horcruxes. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 24 02:51:04 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 02:51:04 -0000 Subject: Harry and the Half-Blood Prince, Part One In-Reply-To: <12c.68f52df8.308d4f44@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142017 Julie: > This has got me to thinking exactly how the Half-Blood Prince > plot fit into book Two originally. The time seems wrong to reveal > an unexpected communion between Harry and the HBP, as > Harry and Snape haven't yet built up the *truly* antagonistic > relationship that is in full bloom by the beginning of HBP. > I think the HPB must have figured very differently in Book 2, > though I'm not sure how. As it is in Book 6, it doesn't fit. I > have considered whether *Tom Riddle* might have originally been > the Half-Blood Prince, considering his ancestry is very similar > to Snape's. Additionally, Tom thinks he's *that* much better than > everyone else, and he could consider his direct descendancy > from Salazar Slytherin to indicate a sort of royal status. Jen: I do have a theory about this, one that keeps growing in the telling. Some of this is speculative, yet grounded in the canon we have so far. If the HBP storyline had remained in COS, I think the story would have contained at least cursory information about Snape's background, his family and possibly his reasons for joining the DE's/defecting from Voldemort (that part could have waited though, and only clues to Snape's family were the important part). Basically I'm saying JKR wouldn't have used the potion book so extensively in COS, but as a parallel to, or even a red herring for, the Diary. "Fifty years ago" so far means the general time Riddle was at Hogwarts, and the theory starts there. Hermione guessed the potion book belonged to Eileen Prince 50 years prior, which would make Eileen a Slytherin student during the time Riddle & Hagrid were in school (and a couple of years after McGonagall started). I say she was in Slytherin based on the family connection, but also because the theory works better that way :). So Eileen and Riddle had at least a passing knowledge of each other, but Eileen didn't share Riddle's pure-blood fanaticism or join his gang, the forerunners to the DE's (A Sluggish Memory). Eileen went on her way to marry Tobias Snape and have Severus, and Tom went on his quest for immortality. Now here's where we move into most of the 'guesswork and speculation' as DD would call it. Suppose when LV started gaining power in the first war, Eileen remembered Riddle was known as Lord Voldemort at Hogwarts. She remembered his interest in dark arts, the strange events during her years at Hogwarts and even warned Severus about LV. Perhaps a young & rebellious Snape idealized the idea of Voldemort though, as the most proficient dark arts expert in the world, and he was one of those people who didn't realize "what {Voldemort} was prepared to do to get power." (OOTP chap.6, p.112, scholastic) Snape, halfway seriously/halfway cynically, chose the HBP title, mainly because of his interest in Voldemort's dark magic expertise. A bit of hero-worship in other words. Now we know Draco was recruited as punishment for Lucius' failure, and that Fenrir bites children to punish the parents, so it's certainly *possible* Snape was recruited as punishment to Eileen-the- pureblood for marrying a Muggle. (Not only Voldemort, but the DE's from his school gang could have remembered her, and it was public knowledge she married Tobias). Once Snape was an official DE though, Voldemort decided to go a step further expecting Severus wouldn't disobey him once he received the Dark Mark. Either Severus was asked to kill one or both parents, or he knew of the plot to kill them, but that's the point at which Snape turned and asked Dumbledore for help in exchange for saving at least his mom. So Eileen could be Irma Pince, as people have speculated, the witness protection participant we're waiting to see after DD offered to hide Draco and Narcissa. Or perhaps Snape turned to Dumbledore too late, and his parents were killed, leading him to be completely anti-Voldemort if not quite pro-Dumbledore yet. Both ideas have some long-run difficulties, as in once Eileen was either safe or dead, why would that keep Snape attached to Dumbledore? Overall though, I think this theory can provide some clues for why Snape entered, then left, Voldemort's service. So what do yout think Julie, or anyone else? Jen, wondering if this JKR sentence was a little poke at fandom: "..but the mouth organ was only ever a mouth organ." (The Secret Riddle) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 24 03:01:59 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:01:59 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: > ALL other encounters Harry and Dumbledore have in HBP are previously > arranged by the headmaster. > Please note JKR informs us very clearly of every single arrangement! > Connecting those points together, we get the picture of an elusive headmaster, always away from Hogwarts, > Well, when Harry hears (by chance?) Dumbledore's in Hogwarts and runs to his office to show him the memory he's just got, he breaks a pattern. And we have evidence something is indeed different: when Dumbledore pours the contents of the bottle into the Pensieve this time, he uses his left hand. In all previous Pensieve sessions he had used his right hand (the injured one) to handle the bottles. > Valky: Oooh Good spotting here Lucianam :D You got me to lok twice, and I discovered that DD is also temporarily stunned when Harry claims to have Slughorn's memory. Which could be said to be OOC for Dumbledore, who usually is found *expecting* Harry whenever he arrives appointment or no. Luicianam: > I'm not saying it's an impostor pretending to be Dumbledore (could > it be, though?). I think something else happened. > > One person does act differently and has different information, > depending on which point in time that person is. > > I think Dumbledore has been Time Travelling all through HBP. Valky: I am going to jump out on a limb to support you here, Lucianam. I think you're right. And I think some of the strongest evidence is in he foreshadowing. Allow me to explain: Since HBP there has been some speculatins surrounding the behaviour of Draco Malfoy, and in particular the similarity in descriptive language between Draco in HBP and Lupin in POA. Many of you already see where I am going with this right? HaHA!! Of course you do.. Okay so if we can add grey looking and disappearing to suspicions of a werewolf bite, then we can equally add, tired looking and dissappearing can't we. IOW who was looking rather exhausted by the end of POA? Like Dumbledore in HBP.. None other than Hermione. Okay, now I know there are a good percentage of us who have thrown bitten!Draco to the pile, and the prerogative belongs to the same, of course. OTOH the POA foreshadowings here IMO seem to run end to end. I am buying it, and a bag to carry it home in. The question that immediately srings to mind of course is hmm, which way did he travel and when and how much...? Possibilities? Oh there are all sorts. Dumbledore could even return from the dead temporarily through this! Phoenix rising foreshadowing? For some of us.. cheering and thouhts of looking forward to it, I would say. For others... better answer another thread as your reply is guessable (deux machina, contrived, JKR wiggling out of a tight spot, waves of dissillusioned sighs from fans.. yeah, got it, assimilated it moving on...) Lucianam: And the reason Dumbledore didn't recognise the memory Harry presented him after the burial as the wrong one was because he was a 'different Dumbledore' from the one who had showed Harry the Sluggish memory. Valky: Our paths will diverge here, Lucianam. I am content to believe the memory Harry obtained was the real one. Lucianam: > Confusing? I think so, too. Think of PoA. When Harry and Hermione o back in time to save Sirius and Buckbeak, we have two sets of Harry-and-Hermione in the past. The difference between the 'from the future' and 'past' H-and-H is clearly shown when Harry-from-the-future is able to conjure the Patronus, and Harry-from-the-past is not. When Harry and Hermione use the Time Traveller again and return to the hospital wing, Harry now knows it was him, not his dad, who conjured the Patronus. He didn't know such before he Time-Travelled. Valky: Now, doesn't this make you wonder if Dumbledore knew Harry could retrieve the memory from Slughorn as a result of the surprise appearance by Harry that night. I tried to look at the mechanics of it as a Tme travel incedent, by Oh My, Oh My.. forget it. It could take all week to come up with a scenario that makes sense. Lucianam: > I suspect he uses that watch of him to Time Travel (the one we see in the first chapter or PS/SS). Now that Ron's got a similar one (from Dumbledore himself??) I suspect the kids will Time Travel again in Book 7. Valky: I'll put Galleons on it, Lucianam. I would even have a crack at the timeframe they will return to in case you're interested. The battle at the D.O.M. You heard *that* here first Valky From ayaneva at aol.com Mon Oct 24 03:40:28 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:40:28 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142019 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > Valky: > > IMO there are a couple of methods that Trelawney could be applying > strictly from what is available to us. The first of these is reading > from the bottom of the deck. THis is something a tarot reader can do > just prior to laying a specific spread. The bottom of the deck cards > are read in as though they were a sentence. When the sentence ends the reader has a general overview of the impdending as it relates to them. An experienced reader can tell from the sentence at the bottom of the deck things like the theme of the reading, and whether thre is a clear unimpeded view of the subject of the reading or if the, lets call it 'vibe' for the sake of brevity, has come under unexpected influence during shuffling. My response: Wow, I really can't think of anything to add to this! Beautiful reading, really, and it works quite well. Valky says: >(Snape hating Snape seeming to read his mind without > looking at him,, obsessing about Malfoy's mission, attracting a crowd > everywhere he goes) in all senses of it, Me now: Slightly off topic, what do you make of Snape reading Harry's mind without looking at him? Is it just Harry's paranoia? I mean, JKR was saying the same thing about Snape looking Harry in the eye and seeming to read his mind in the first few books and it turned out that Snape was probably doing Legilimency and Harry *wasn't* being paranoid. I know I've probably spelled that all wrong... But anyway, what's up with the reading the mind without looking thing now? Is Harry projecting his emotions/thoughts, making it easier? Could that *really* be the reason that Snape tells Harry repeatedly to close his mind (in the scene where Snape's running away after Dumbledore's been killed on the tower)? I don't know really, I just had a sudden thought, completely unsupported by canon, that Harry's acting like a transmitter when he's very emotional and Snape's serving as a recieving antenna. *shrug* Does that make any sense at all? It kinda goes with Harry's "projecting a strong aura" thing. Valky says: > They are all Swords - When swords come up in numbers like this there > is too much air. Too much air causes instability - this can go to the > point of obsession. A number of swords in a reading tend to indicate > turmoil and overthinking. The first message to Harry (and probably to > Trelawney too) is that they have unhealthy obsessions of the mind ging > on right now. Me now: Why air in particular? Just curious. Is this an elemental thing, like air/fire/etc. What does air, on it's own in a proper amount, mean? Me speaking (or typing): All of that about 4 swords being a good thing and paradoxical meanings is really fascinating! Thanks for posting it! It makes perfect sense. Another question for you, the paradox thing has me thinking. Would there be a difference had Trelawney drawn any of the cards upside down? Or do you only get that in a regular tarot deck? I know the cards that I have don't use the "upside down rule" because the authors believe that every card is inherently good and bad and there's no need to worry about which direction it faces. I'm just wondering if she would've mentioned that the card was the wrong way 'round when she drew it or if it even matters. > Valky: > The reason things don't fit well is because this 4 card question > spread is not necessarily read with the concomitance implied here. My answer: Aaaahhhh. Thanks for clearing that up! Makes much more sense now. --------------------------------------------- Sydney said in post 141946: >The village pub at the start of GoF is called "The Hanged Man". Then >there's the Levicorpus spell-- that suspends the victim FROM ONE >ANKLE-- just like the Hanged Man card. Me responding: Oh yeah!! I forgot all about that, thanks! Neither the title of the chapter nor the Levicorpus spell clicked in my head either. I completely missed it. Sydney: >If Rowling IS following the Tarot squence, Book 7 should be a jolly >cheerful read Me: I love those themes that you mentioned. If JKR does it right, Book 7 will be great and hopeful, but not Velveeta. I think I'm going to die from antici...pation. AyanEva From hg_skmg at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 03:14:17 2005 From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:14:17 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142020 Lucianam73 wrote: (snipped) > I was wondering about Felix Felicis. Didn't Harry trust it just a > little too much? > Of course this raises The Big Question: did Harry get the right > memory? Ahem there's actually a second question: if he did get he > right memory, what went wrong during/after Aragog's burial that > Felix Felicis could have prevented (had Harry drunk it)? > > Dumbledore said the Sluggish memory was the most important of ALL. > He told Harry there was nothing as important as retrieving it. So I > guess Harry taking a fake unknown potion just before he asked > Slughorn for that vital memory is a Huge Thing. > > By the way I thing the real Sluggish memory is not the one Harry > got, but I'll leave this for another post. hg: lucianam, I agree that Harry not being under the influence of the Felix is a huge thing -- but at that point our thinking seems to take separate paths. I hope that I can contribute something valuable to you anyway, especially seeing how much you've put into your theories. I think Harry had the real thing, and it wasn't working anymore by the time he got the memory. He thinks the bottle holds 24 hours' worth, but it holds 12; he takes a "carefully measured gulp" which, if he drank the amount he thought he was, actually covers him for only 60-90 minutes. Plus, he leaves at sunset and arrives back at the castle past midnight. (Your question about what went wrong in the scene in the hut, that could have been avoided if he'd been under Felix's influence, is interesting to me and begs further thought.) I think the hugeness, then, lies in Harry behaving as he does of his own accord, Slughorn making his choice freely without being subject to any magical influence, and the likelihood that Harry erroneously assumes that Slughorn will remember nothing the next day. I do think he got the right memory, freely given him by Slughorn. Although the question of Time travel is really interesting (yes, I did read your other post!), I don't see the connection here, only because I don't agree that the memory he gives Harry is the modified version. In regards, then, to your other post, you didn't tie in the RAB thing you mentioned in this one, but I don't think it's possible for him to be talking to Regulus because it would be decades before Regulus' birth. If you are still running with this theory, whom else might you suggest he's talking to? Hope you can make use of my input. hg. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 24 04:59:42 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:59:42 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142021 Lucianam: > Connecting those points together, we get the picture of an elusive > headmaster, always away from Hogwarts, presumably collecting the > memories for his Pensieve sessions with Harry, and always > carefully informing Harry of when they are supposed to meet to see > those memories. Jen: First, I think like Valky in #142018 that the Slughorn memory was indeed real, but your time-travel idea is very intriguing, and I definitely believe Dumbledore's and Ron's watches are significant for the future plot! As for what Dumbledore was doing while away, I do think he was researching the locations of the horcruxes rather than collecting the memories. Some of the memories he collected, and the subsequent actions he took, would have changed the future. Like when he retrieved Morfin's memories and tried to secure his release from Azkaban or intervened on Hokey's behalf (this isn't said directly in text, but Dumbledore did discuss his knowledge of the MOM case against Hokey, which would mean he investigated further than just retrieving the memory). Maybe he did time-travel to get Ogden's memory though, since Ogden died 'some time ago' according to DD in "The House of Gaunt." Dumbledore could have still used the memories to help him decide which location to time-travel to. Like say he and Harry reviewed the Secret Riddle memory, likely Dumbledore's real memory, then Dumbledore started to wonder about the cave and whether Riddle felt that location was significant? So Dumbledore decided to travel back in time and talk to Mrs. Cole (with gin in hand )and find out the exact location of the seashore outing. Or for that matter, he traveled back to witness the actual scene in the cave. Ethically I think this would be a very sound plotline because Dumbledore is the only character who would be capable of visiting the cave scene, or Hogwarts during the time of Riddle, and not attempt to change the events even knowing the outcome. The Trio exhibiting that same capability, though...... well, maybe JKR will have to fudge a little, like Harry thinking TT!Harry was actually James casting the patronus. Lucinam: > I think Dumbledore has been Time Travelling all through HBP. That > would explain why Scrimgeour so desperately sought Harry's aid to > tell him where the headmaster was, why Dumbledore always carefully > timed his meetings with Harry. Jen: That would explain why no one could trace him, even the trained aurors who were tailing him throughout the story or his staff (McGonagall had as little idea as Scrimgeour where Dumbledore went). Valky: > Now, doesn't this make you wonder if Dumbledore knew Harry could > retrieve the memory from Slughorn as a result of the surprise > appearance by Harry that night. Jen: I'd like to think Dumbledore believed Harry could retrieve the memory for the same reason he believed Harry could convince Slughorn to take up the position at Hogwarts--because he understood Harry's strengths and Slughorn's weaknesses (and how the two would collide). More mundane than time-travel, I know, but if TT explains too many of the character's actions when there's already a character explanation in place, that's when it starts to seem, what, cheesy? Deux et machina, contrived? ;) All a matter of individual opinion, of course. Plot aspects like how Dumbledore found the cave, which has no explanation in text so far, could be explained quickly by time- travel. And boy does JKR need some tricks to get through the story left for Book 7! Lucianam: > I suspect he uses that watch of him to Time Travel (the one we see > in the first chapter or PS/SS). Now that Ron's got a similar one > (from Dumbledore himself??) I suspect the kids will Time Travel > again in Book 7. Jen: I do believe that watch came to Ron from Dumbledore, disguised as a birthday present from his parents (who may or may not have been in on the giving). Why Ron instead of Hermione, who has time-travel experience? The simple answer is it was a boy's watch, but simple isn't fun, is it ? There's still the chance, I think, that Dumbledore possessed those watches because they belonged to Godric Gyffindor and DD/Aberforth are the last *direct* descendants of that line (and owners of the house at Godric's Hollow). The Weasleys, with their red hair and pure blood, are distantly related and also in possession of a GG item--Molly's useful clock. Valky: > I'll put Galleons on it, Lucianam. I would even have a crack at the > timeframe they will return to in case you're interested. The > battle at the D.O.M. You heard *that* here first Jen: No, no, Godric's Hollow the night of the murders, of course!! Why the DOM? Not that I don't think it's possible but what would they be looking for? I'm not sure if you're thinking about Sirius' death or the battle between LV and DD (or something else entirely). Jen, who could never actually explain how time-travel worked in POA, but wouldn't mind seeing it again in limited doses. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 24 05:05:53 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:05:53 -0000 Subject: Who is Fawkes? In-Reply-To: <005e01c5d83d$52d5dfc0$eb04810a@eowyn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142022 > Aussiegirl711 wrote: > > > > After DD's > > death, Fawkes is suddenly gone-perhaps to look for the > > horcruxes or maybe he is going to the actually alive DD? > > > I think that Fawkes is a real phoenix. We saw his (her?) > rebirth from ashes, we saw the healing power. > We have been told that Fawkes belonged to DD, not to > Hogwarts, we saw the office of the previous Headmaster > without Fawkes. > > DD is dead (I believe that he really is dead) and Fawkes > has no reason to stay. > > I hope to see in Book 7 if the Order is somehow connected > to Fawkes (why is it called the Order of the Phoenix?). > Harry could certainly do with some additional magic. > > Lipa > norbertsmummy/ (another aussie) Fawkes sounds like a real Phoenix to me. - His Tail feather is in Harry and LV's wands. - Dived in from of LV's AK in OOTP - and named after "Guy Fawkes" ... resurrected every "craker night" to burn on bon fires when I was a kid ~aussie_lol~ From kjones at telus.net Mon Oct 24 05:53:24 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:53:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435C76D4.8030809@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 142024 > Lucianam: > > I suspect he uses that watch of him to Time Travel (the one we see > > in the first chapter or PS/SS). Now that Ron's got a similar one > > (from Dumbledore himself??) I suspect the kids will Time Travel > > again in Book 7. KJ writes: During the AOL chat in 2000, when JKR was asked if Harry would time travel again, she refused to answer. It might be a very good guess about Ron's watch. I don't think that it is likely that Harry will travel back in time to Godric's Hollow as he simply could never be trusted not to change the course of history. He could not destroy Voldemort in that time period because he would not have destroyed the horcruxes yet, and if he prevented his mother's death, he would not have had the protections that kept him alive. I wonder if there would be a way to get around those issues? What if he went back far enough to destroy the horcruxes prior to the attack on Godric's Hollow. What would happen then? I would think that Harry would be wise enough to go back in time to thoroughly question Dumbledore about all the things he did not tell him before he died, which could have a great impact on Book 7. Also, what if Dumbledore travelled forward in time to set things up for Harry's future actions? But you can't do that can you, because you might be dead, which was, I believe an actual explanation by Hermione in PoA. Funny that would even come up. KJ From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 24 06:23:49 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 06:23:49 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142025 > > Valky: > > > > ..... Trelawney could be ...EDIT... reading > > from the bottom of the deck... EDIT.. a tarot reader can ...EDIT > > ... tell from the sentence at the bottom > of the deck ....EDIT..... whether there is > a clear unimpeded view of the subject of the reading > > Harry's Aura interferes... ie Snape hating, Snape seeming to read > > his mind without looking at him,, obsessing about Malfoy's > > mission, attracting a crowd everywhere he goes) > AyanEva: > Slightly off topic, what do you make of Snape reading Harry's mind > without looking at him? Is it just Harry's paranoia? I mean, JKR was > saying the same thing about Snape looking Harry in the eye and > seeming to read his mind in the first few books and it turned out > that Snape was probably doing Legilimency and Harry *wasn't* being > paranoid. I know I've probably spelled that all wrong... Valky: Thanks for the compliments AyanEva. :D And I don't see any spelling mistakes, which word did you think you'd spelled wrong? They all look right to me. Okay on the Legilimency question, I have a few theories I am courting at the moment, but I am not sure which exactly works best or whether a blend of them is more appropriate. In one theory I am thinking that during the legilimency lessons of the previous year, Harrry tapped into his greatest power with which he will defeat Voldemort. He focussed it in repelling Snape in the moment when he broke into Snapes mind. I have a feeling that the prescence of Sirius in Harry's mind in both this case, in the MOM when he expelled Voldemort from his body, and then later more than once when Snape is sitting or walking by Harry quietly, is more than coincedence. It is Dumbledore that points us to this as Harry's love power so that is why I consider that a possibility. In this case I think that perhaps Snape having been exposed to this power in Harry's fifth year, has learned to wield part of it in certain spells or has simply learned that you don't need eye contact to read Harry because of it. The second theory sort of expands from the first, but can stand alone. Which is that when Harry broke into Snapes mind during the Occlumency lessons, it was an unusual occurence, something that would not normally occur in that exact way under the circumstances. I hypothesise that because of this strange occurence (which could be the prescence of Harry's distinguished Power of Love) Harry and Snape are now 'mindlocked' for want of a better word. The third theory is exactly as you supposed AyanEva, which is simply, without complication, that Harry is projecting such a strong aura that any accomplished enough legilimens in the vicinity only needs to pay attention to hear his head rants clear as a bell. In any of the three cases there is some support in canon. There is especially support for the third, as it is apparent even Dumbledore can hear Harry's unspoken words sometimes. (See - in the spidery broomshed.) AyanEva: > Could that *really* be the reason that Snape tells Harry repeatedly > to close his mind (in the scene where Snape's running away after > Dumbledore's been killed on the tower)? Valky: You know AyanEva, it really *could* be. Of course, I'd still say Snape's wrong and JKR is right, Harry doesn't have it in him to hide, so he probably won't. OTOH it would make sense that Snape felt all the more urgency to push him that way if Harry *is* projecting. (whatever flavour Snape you prefer ) > Valky says: > > They are all Swords - When swords come up in numbers like this > > there is too much air. > > AyanEva: > Why air in particular? Just curious. Is this an elemental thing, > like air/fire/etc. Valky: Yes exactly. Air the Element. > AyanEva: > What does air, on it's own in a proper amount, mean? Valky: Air pertains to the mind and to thoughts and logic. Hmm fascinating how the air element fits in with themes that we are discussing above. Good air, as in a balance of it or proper amount, will lend to high intellect, a love of learning and especially of theory. This goes strongly to Snape, and as it happens I think that most of us, including me, have always suspected Snape's other side (apart from Slytherin) would be revealed to be the Ravenclaw type (which happens to be Air), and so it has. Just off on a tangent for a fragment I think that Snape finishes up with this combination (I don't think, as much as we might hope it, that Snape has a Gryffindor streak) Snape is Water/Air (Slytherin/Ravenclaw) to save time I'll just paste something from this site: http://www.astrology-numerology.com/elements.html on the Water/Air combination - **Quote Air and Water Type Although you often feel pulled between intellectual and emotional orientations of life, heavy does of Air and Water elements can make you very much attuned to both realms of experience. Neither the abstract nor the feeling-intuitive world is alien to you, and you are thus able to develop a mode of operation that encompasses both types of perception. This results in your being able to give depth to your ideas and in your ability to gain detachment and perspective on feelings and deeper yearnings. You are physically and psychologically sensitive; a dreamer, an escapist, perhaps a little fantasy-prone. You have an amazingly fertile imagination and specialized skills for dealing with people. You know how to tune in to people, and communicate concisely. **end quote A little bit Snapeish isn't it? The combination of Air and Water when in balance can reveal a character capable of extraordinary detachment and perspective. Snape as the clever double agent spy, is this. However if the water element weighs higher you get hysterical Snape due to a lack of earth grounding element in the mix, and when the air element gets out of balance and weighs higher you get dry-ice bitterly cold Snape because of the absence of fire. So you see, a fluctuating balance of water and air elements paint the character of Snape really well, don't they? Just FYI if you're interested in looking at these things in the Potterverse. > AyanEva: > All of that about 4 swords being a good thing and paradoxical > meanings is really fascinating! Thanks for posting it! It makes > perfect sense. > > Another question for you, the paradox thing has me thinking. Would > there be a difference had Trelawney drawn any of the cards upside > down? Or do you only get that in a regular tarot deck? I know the > cards that I have don't use the "upside down rule" because the > authors believe that every card is inherently good and bad and > there's no need to worry about which direction it faces. I'm just > wondering if she would've mentioned that the card was the wrong > way 'round when she drew it or if it even matters. > Valky: There is an upside down in playing cards. Though as a general rule it is ignored. In Tarot the upside down card can be read as obscurity to the meaning in many senses, some say it means that the good aspect of the card is lacking dignity from the questioner, while others say that the good aspect of the card is elementally blocked by the questioner (elementally as in cups=emotionally Swords=mentally). Both roads lead to the same place really in saying that an upside down card essentially points the questioner to something in the matter that they may be approaching wrongly or need to change their perspective on. The upside-down in playing cards is indicated by the suit symbol appearing below the value symbol. The little one under the Q in queen or 6 on a six, it points in one direction at both ends on the average deck. In any case, I agree wth you tha Trelawney would be likely to mention an upside down card if it was significant to the reading. But it's been fun discussing the alternatives with you anyway. Valky From littleleah at handbag.com Mon Oct 24 14:21:28 2005 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:21:28 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142026 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote (much snipped): > > > Dumbledore said in HBP, Chapter 'A Sluggish Memory': > > 'It is most important that we secure the true memory, Harry... how important, we will only know when we have seen the real thing.' > > What if they haven't seen the real thing? What if the memory Slughorn gave Harry was not the one he'd been hiding, but the cover- up? > > But Dumbledore would have known it was not the foggy memory, wouldn't he? > > Not necessarily... Please follow me: > > Note that amongst all Harry's meetings with Dumbledore to see those memories, the only one that occurs by chance, and not by previous appointment. > > > Well, when Harry hears (by chance?) Dumbledore's in Hogwarts and runs to his office to show him the memory he's just got, he breaks a pattern. And we have evidence something is indeed different: when Dumbledore pours the contents of the bottle into the Pensieve this time, he uses his left hand. In all previous Pensieve sessions he had used his right hand (the injured one) to handle the bottles. > > I'm not saying it's an impostor pretending to be Dumbledore (could it be, though?). I think something else happened. The breaking of the 'precise time pattern' means, in my opinion, that the Dumbledore in that specific Pensieve session (the one right after the burial) was somehow different than the 'other Dumbledores' in all other Pensieve sessions. He had, or more likely, lacked, information the 'other Dumbledores' had. > > > I think Dumbledore has been Time Travelling all through HBP. >> Lucianam Leah: I loved this post, and I do think you could be right about the time travel. It makes a lot of sense of the canon evidence we have concerning DD in HBP, and I would be very surprised if we don't see it again in book 7. However, I have to agree with the others who have responded that the after the burial memory is the right one. If it wasn't then Harry would presumably have to spend valuable book 7 time retrieving a third memory from Slughorn, which would be a revisting of theme that would occupy, I think, too much dramatic space. However, you make some good points about the difference between this and the other pensieve-viewing sessions in terms of DD's preparedness and mental state. While it was unlikely that JKR would show Harry sitting on the true sluggish memory until DD arranged a meeting, there seems no good reason why Harry should not have burst in upon a DD who had just had a good nap and was mentally refreshed. As you point out, JKR carefully tells us that DD has been away, that he returned an hour before 'looking tired' and that he has since been occupied with business. When DD responds to Harry's knock, he 'sounded exhausted'. (UK, page 461). I wondered therefore if this was a 'Spot the Difference' puzzle. DD has had no chance to review this memory against the false one. If he had done, would he have spotted a difference that he failed to notice in his weary state? The description and speech of the first sluggish memory is repeated carefully in the second memory, with the obvious exception of the filled in foggy portions. I found just one potentially interesting difference. In 'A Sluggish Memory', "Slughorn pulled himself out of his armchair and carried his empty glass over to his desk as the boys filed out. Riddle, however, stayed behind. Harry could tell he had dawdled deliberately, wanting to be last in the room with Slughorn. 'Look sharp, Tom', said Slughorn, turning round and finding him still present'..." (UK, p347). In 'Horcruxes',"One by one the boys filed out of the room. Slughorn heaved himself out of his armchair and carried his empty glass over to his desk. A movement behind made him look round; Riddle was still standing there. 'Look sharp, Tom, you don't want to be caught out of bed..." (UK p463). In the first memory, we (via Harry) look directly at Riddle; Harry sees what he is doing and guesses what he is up to. Slughorn seems to finish what he is doing, and then, on completing his task and turning around, to notice Riddle. In the second memory, the focus is on Slughorn, and he appears to turn round not because he has finished at the desk, but because he is alerted by Riddle's movement. This seems to be the only difference in focus between the two memory descriptions, and I noticed it more because when viewing DD's memory in 'Lord Voldemort's Request', Harry is alerted by a sudden movement of Voldemort's (UK p 417). I'm afraid I don't have any current suggestions as to the significance of the difference, and perhaps it is 'only a mouthorgan', but I wondered if anyone out there has any thoughts. Leah From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 24 14:31:04 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:31:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142027 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 2, Spinner's End. Summary: This appears to be the same day as chapter one, but in a very different location. A dark mood is set at once with the description of a disused mill, deserted buildings, and a dirty river. Words like "shadowy", "ominous" and "no sign of life" round out the setting. Narcissa and Bella appear and begin to argue about Narcissa's mission. When Bella tries to stop her, Narcissa counters with a hex. Bella follows at a distance and then joins her at the last house on Spinner's End. It is Snape who invites them in. "They had stepped directly into a tiny sitting room, which had the feeling of a dark, padded cell. The walls were completely covered in books, most of them bound in old black or brown leather, a threadbare sofa, an old armchair, and a rickety table stood grouped together in a pool of dim light cast by a candle-filled lamp hung from the ceiling. The place had a air of neglect, as though it was not usually inhabited." Wormtail is also at the house and is called upon to serve elf-made wine. He complains about being used as a servant, but doesn't accept when Snape suggests they have the Dark Lord find other work for him. Although he greets the witches by first names, neither responds. Snape sends him to his bedroom, and later blasts him with a spell to make certain he is not listening to the conversation. The relationship appears to be one of master and unwilling servant. Severus and Narcissa call each other by first names. He addresses Bellatrix as Bella, but she uses "Snape" throughout the meeting. At Snape's request, Bella brings up many reasons for distrusting him. He counters with explanations for his absences at certain Death Eater events. Others must doubt his loyalty as well because he tells her, "You can carry my words back to the others who whisper behind my back, and carry false tales of my treachery to the Dark Lord!" He explains his reasons for remaining at Hogwarts. It was safer there, and he was able to maintain his position as spy for the Dark Lord. He gives the impression that he has the Dark Lord's complete trust. Bella, however, appears to have lost status. Now it is Narcissa's turn. She begins to talk about "the plan." Snape supports Bella by saying Narcissa shouldn't speak about it. Then changes direction and says it is all right to talk to him because he knows the plan. Narcissa is distraught. She cries, she pleads. Draco has been given an assignment and it is doubtful he will succeed. Even Snape says the Dark Lord expects him to fail. Bella is proud of Draco's response to the mission and says she would be glad to give up sons for the Dark Lord. Narcissa asks for Snape's help. When he offers to "try", she asks for the Unbreakable Vow. He agrees and even directs Bella in her role as Bonder. She is astonished. During the ceremony he agrees to these requests: "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?" Discussion: This chapter has already been well discussed. The list began wondering about Spinner's End even before the book came out. I've avoided those topics that I've seen on the board, particularly the ones that have current threads. Feel free to add any questions of your own; or to revive any old issues from this chapter. 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger happy, or is it just Bella? 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in the late 90's? 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long do you think Snape has been using this location? 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? 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? 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person limited- omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the Muggle Prime Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" dispenses with a point- of-view character altogether. Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic or third-person objective point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's as if both the narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene, much like Harry on the tower. How does this change in the point of view affect our reading of this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose this point of view rather than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or Bellatrix's mind? How does having a chapter written from a point of view other than Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series itself? Should JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to maintain a Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? Related link about Point of View: http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/fiction/elements.asp?e=4 10. 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? NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Potioncat who would like to thank SSSusan and Carol for their assistance! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 16:54:36 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:54:36 -0000 Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142028 Pippin wrote: > > You determined these endpoints by consulting an almanac or something similar, but would JKR bother to do that? Nowhere else in canon does she approach times or dates with that kind of versimilitude. I guess she would simply rely on her subjective opinion that summer nights in northern Scotland are relatively short. Neri responded: > JKR has lived several years in Scotland and she knows that sunset in the summer there is around 10pm (using DST now). This establishes that in JKR's privet clock Umbridge takes Harry to the forest before 9:00. Conclusion: when it's important to the plot JKR is consistent and exact about the timing. The relation between dinnertime, the sun's position and the time of sunset is consistent over both PoA and OotP. > > What we indeed don't know from canon is when JKR thinks is the first light of dawn. However, I simply can't believe she's so ignorant and math-challenged to think it's as early as 1:00am (in realty it's around 3:00am using DST). So even in JKR's privet clock it should be *at least* 4 hours, probably more than that. Carol responds: First, I'm not sure what you mean by "JKR's privet clock." Do you mean her personal (private) internal clock? Privet is a shrub, as in Privet Drive, unless it has another meaning in British English which I, as an American, am missing. Can you clarify your intended meaning here? Thanks. That aside, I'll grant you that she has figured out the timing of *Harry's* actions with some precision, even though this is the same woman who thinks that Charlie Weasley, the star Seeker without whom Gryffindor couldn't win a match until Harry arrived, can be two (changed to three) years older than Percy and yet Gryffindor hasn't won a match in seven years. (Huh?) I won't go into the other examples of her maths inadequacies, but we all know they exist and she admits them herself. Even if, realizing this deficiency, she sat down with an almanac to figure out the timing of *Harry's* actions, chances are she has *not* figured out exactly how Snape's actions (which she touches on only to show why DD still trusts Snape) would fit the requirements of the plot. She doesn't even seem to notice that it would make more sense for him to go into the forest *before* contacting the Order the second time. (DD, being highly intelligent, would see this as well, as would the relentlessly logical Snape. I see no other way that he could have figured out that Harry and his friends were indeed gone.) What JKR needs is for Harry to get into the forest with Hermione and Umbridge, ditch Umbridge, be rejoined by their DA friends, fly to the MoM, be met by the DEs, fight the DEs, be rescued by the Order just in time, then have Harry fight Bellatrix and have Voldie arrive followed by DD just in time to fight him. This plot requires that the Order be delayed and that DD be delayed even more so that his arrival roughly coincides with Voldie's (accomplished through his talk with Kreacher at Order HQ). If Harry and his friends had arrived with the Order already there, they would either have watched the fight from the sidelines or been scolded and sent home. Somehow, that wasn't quite climactic enough. For Snape, the requirements are to discover that Sirius is not missing or in danger, to discover Harry's whereabouts and figure out that he has somehow managed to leave the forest without a broom him and without knowing how to Apparate, to search the forest when he realizes Harry hasn't returned (a dangerous undertaking given the present mood of the Centaurs), to contact DD (who otherwise would not have known to go to Order HQ), and to re-contact the Order, telling Sirius to wait for DD and the others to go to the MoM. Although JKR doesn't say so, he almost certainly has to deal with the hexed Slytherins as well. (And there's the small matter of his duties as a teacher. I rather think the poor man didn't have much time that night for grading Potions essays.) We don't know how he communicated with the Order: If by Patronus, it was probably rather less quick and efficient than by sticking his head in Umbridge's fireplace, which I assume he did when he talked with the Order members rather than Sirius Black alone. *The plot* requires Snape to contact the Order at about the time the kids are fighting the DEs (setting aside whatever time it takes them to get organized and arrive at the DoM, into which you can't Apparate directly). It's clear from the sketchy and somewhat inconsistent details of Snape's side of the action that JKR has not thought it through nearly as fully as she has thought through the fully enacted Harry scenes. It's also clear, as has been repeatedly stated on this list, that neither Dumbledore nor Bellatrix considered the Order's arrival to be excessively delayed. (Fortunately for Snape, Bella doesn't know who sent them!) In any case, there are plenty of reasons why Snape would not have sent the Order to the MoM quite as soon as you think he should have done, one of which was figuring out that Harry actually believed the vision that he, Snape, knew to be false, as well as realizing that it was actually possible for him to have left Hogwarts. Did the anti-wizard Centaurs tell him this? Did he use Legilimency on them? Or did he just "put two and two together as only Snape could" using clues he found in the forest? However you look at it, Snape's job wasn't easy and could well have taken as much time as it took Harry and company to get to London and fight the DEs. And if it didn't, blame the requirements of JKR's plot, not Snape, without whose action in sending the Order to the MoM, Harry and his friends would be dead. Carol, who's not even sure that JKR is aware of the much more important missing 24 hours in SS/PS and is certain she sees no "missing five hours" regarding Snape From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 24 17:03:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:03:03 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142029 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > What we indeed don't know from canon is when JKR thinks is the first > light of dawn. However, I simply can't believe she's so ignorant and > math-challenged to think it's as early as 1:00am (in realty it's > around 3:00am using DST). So even in JKR's privet clock it should be > *at least* 4 hours, probably more than that. Pippin: But Hogwarts is well north of Edinburgh, where JKR lives, and she may have only a vague idea of how much earlier dawn is as you go north. F'rinstance, I have a vague memory of it being light in May in Leningrad (which shows you that it was a long time ago) at 2 AM. Maybe Leningrad is well north of Hogwarts, and maybe it was really three. But that's my impression, and if I were writing a story I might not bother to look it up, especially if it wasn't really important. You've got a circular argument going -- JKR would have looked the time up if it was important, but it's only important if there was a delay, and we only know there was a delay because of the time... > > Neri: > I don't see why is it relevant how Snape sees Harry. The Order's top > missions in OotP are to guard Harry and to guard the prophecy. This is > made clear from the very beginning, when Harry is nearly assassinated > because the Order's guard had left his watch, and repeated many times > throughout the book. Snape was the last Order member left at Hogwarts. > His obvious duty was to keep an eye on Harry. Certainly when Harry has > a public collapse, reports messages from Voldemort in the middle of > the day, and is held by the witch who had attacked Hagrid and > McGonagall just the day before that. Pippin: Only specific members of the Order are tasked to look after Harry, as Lupin points out at the beginning of the book. Presumably they have other duties that they are not supposed to neglect. We saw Harry get a good chewing out in HBP for disregarding his assigned mission. In fact if McGonagall hadn't deserted *her* duty to watch over Gryffindor students in a vain and unnecessary attempt to rescue Hagrid, things might have gone far otherwise. Harry is presumed safe as long as he is at Hogwarts and he is AFAWK not watched constantly while he is there. As Sirius tells him, this year, the enemy is outside Hogwarts, not within. Neri: Even if Snape thought Harry doesn't want or can't go to the DoM by himself, surely he should realize that Harry alone with Umbridge away from the castle is not a good thing? I can imagine a lot about Snape, but not that he's stupid or na?ve. > Pippin: The forest is on the grounds, patrolled by angry centaurs, and just as safe from outside intrusions as the rest of the castle. If there is anything in the forest that would attack a ministry witch or do harm to the Chosen One, it isn't likely to be deterred by Severus Snape. Meanwhile, Umbridge is extremely unlikely to take Harry to the Department of Mysteries, so as long as he's with her, Snape needn't be worried that the prophecy is in danger. > > Pippin: > > If Umbridge can arrange to have the fires at Hogwarts monitored then so can the DE's. They're not safe, certainly not for a message which Snape would find very difficult to explain to Voldemort. If he's told Voldemort that there are no Order members at Hogwarts besides him and McGonagall, then Snape is going to have a hard time accounting for the sudden appearance of the Order at Hogwarts, even if he can conceal that he summoned them. > > > > Neri: > It is pretty much established that Umbridge's fire was not monitored. > If it was, Umbridge would have known what Harry told Sirius and Lupin > after the first time he used it, and when capturing Harry she would > have first listened to the "recording" of what he said before > questioning him. Pippin: Could Snape be sure Umbridge hadn't arranged it so her fire could communicate with her office at the Ministry? Could he be sure DE's couldn't eavesdrop from there? They wouldn't care about Harry discussing Snape's school days with Lupin or Sirius -- they *would* care about messages from Snape to GP. Then there's the problem of Snape trying to convince the Order it's really him if he doesn't use his patronus and wants them to undertake a risky mission to the DoM where two of their number have already been attacked. Neri: > Are you saying the Order left Snape as their only man at Hogwarts with > his only safe mean of communication a slow patronus, when all signs > pointing that Voldemort's attack is imminent? Again credibility is > stretched very thin. Pippin: Imagining an alternate means of communication is not only wildly speculative, it opens an industrial size can of worms. Why doesn't the Order use this means to summon more of its members before dashing off to the Ministry? Why don't they use it to tell Dumbledore where they've gone instead of leaving a message with Kreacher? Why don't they send Tonks and Shacklebolt ahead to scout in case it's a DE trap, especially if they don't really trust Snape very much? Why don't they send some backup to Hogwarts, ditto? Nope, I'm afraid Hermione's coins are the closest thing in the WW to instant text messages, and the Order doesn't seem to have adopted them even yet. From what JKR says, they're worried about having anything on them that might mark them as Order members, or could be stolen and used by the enemy. My sense is they think it's somehow unwizarding to be at the beck and call of a device, as Muggles are with their fellytones, or the Death Eaters are with their Dark Marks. Cultural differences, you know. Try to understand why the WWI British thought that giving parachutes to their pilots would encourage cowardice, or nineteenth century Americans thought that fire insurance was flouting Providence. It just sounds weird to us, but intelligent, educated people believed these things. > > Pippin: > > We also know that the Ministry monitors apparation. > > Neri: > We do? Then I must have missed it. Can you supply the canon? Pippin: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm Question: How does the wizarding world protect Muggle banks and vaults, etc. from wizards apparating into them and stealing the contents? J.K. Rowling responds: Well, the Ministry of Magic keeps tabs on people apparating. That's why you have to have a license to do it, and the moment you abuse it you can find yourself in serious trouble (or Azkaban!). Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 17:05:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:05:07 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142030 > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? Alla: I love your questions, Potioncat. For the chapter which was being discussed so very often, you certainly lead us to not very well researched territory yet. :-) 1. I think Bella DOES watch over her shoulder every second . She has to in order to stay alive, doesn't she? I mean, she is a member of terrorist organization, who escaped from prison and this terrorist organisation is not legal in WW, right? As to whether all DE are that trigger happy as her, well for very same reasons I want to say yes, on the other hand maybe they do exercise a bit more thinking prior to start shooting Avadas. I have no idea. > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? Alla: I don't know how long Snape had been using this location, whether it is his father's home or not, but the location itself makes perfect sense for me as for Snape the spy ( no matter whom he is spying for :- )) I mean, if he wants to hide from as many wizards as possible from both sides, where else to hide but in Muggle neighborhood. I am also not surprised that Bella does not know about the location, even if Snape was using it for quite some time. I mean, even if they hang out together at school, there is no specific reason that Snape would invite pureblood Bella to his home ( if it IS his family home), if for no other reason that Snape could be ashamed of his home. After school - well, Bella was in Azkaban for quite some time, Snape was in Hogwarts and when they returned to Voldie, we can see that there is no love lost between those two, right? :) As to why Narcissa knows the location - I think Neri has the best answer to this question, I just want to say that there is nothing inc anon IMO which stops us from speculating that Cissy was also a part of the gang. > > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or > the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is > his usual home away from Hogwarts? Alla: That he needs a better looking furniture and is in desperate need of more socialising with his neighbors? :-) I don't know, I guess if one likes the argument that Snape is his own worst enemy, padded cell comparison strengthens it, I suppose. > > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the > feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? > How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Alla: I absolutely believe that Narcissa desperation is real. I believe it because she is shown acting desperate with Bella ( There is nothing I would not do anymorre). Come to think of it, because of Cissy acting desperate with Bella, I am not quite buying the theory that Voldemort told Narcissa to come and force Snape to enter into UV, I think she did it all on her own. > 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? I think I like this question of yours the best. As you may know to me the book is good when it engages not only my thoughts, but my emotions as well, and this chapter certainly provided it on so many levels. Luckily HBP came out recently and I still remember some of my feelings and images after the first read. For some reason I was pleasantly surprised that Bella is capable of maintaining some sort of normal conversation with her sister. I thought she was far too gone in the sanity department to do so. Not that I now think that Bella is completely sane, mind you, but at the very least sometimes she acts as normal person, sort of. I don't like when villain is just crazy and that's all, too cartoonish for my taste. Snape - well, I remember the feeling of intense dissappointment and the image of the character I had crushing down in front of my eyes. " Spinned him a tale of deepest remorse" - not cool , Snape, so not cool. ( Those are my feelings, not really debating it now :-)) Oh, how could I forget - I had this image,which made me ill, that fanfic writers will now write canon based slash stories with Snape and Peter as main characters, because they, you know, live together. :-) And that is from someone who loves slash, but just picturing these two together. Shudders.... Thank you so much. I skipped some of your questions, because I want to know what others think first. Alla From watermelon_blow_pop2002 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 04:28:32 2005 From: watermelon_blow_pop2002 at yahoo.com (canusmajor_siriusblack) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:28:32 -0000 Subject: Was Snape the one to give Lordything his wand back? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142031 Snape, the bad guy all along. In book 6 , did he know that "Dark Lord" was back. There seems to be a lot about Professor Snape that we don't know and that we need to find out. Lord Voldemort some how had his wand when he emerged from the cauldron. Was it Snape that went to Godric's Hollow to retrieve it before, (or after) Harry was rescued? A few things are out of place, yes I know, but as it turns out, Snape was a "servant" all this time. Also with book 6 coming, Harry will have to no only guard his mind from the "Dark Lord", but from Snape as well. Will Harry be ready with the skillls that he needs when the time comes? Canusmajor. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 17:33:16 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:33:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142032 Meri, responding with snipping of potioncat's excellent summary: > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? Meri: I was actually a little surprised the first time this part. After all, why would a powerful DE like Bellatrix LeStrange stoop to such a tiny bit of animal cruelty? But on my second reread I realized that it was Bella's paranoia that lead her to kill the animal, not her cruelty. I wonder if it is only Aurors that she's worried about. She's fallen out of favor with LV, and she's on a mission that the Dark Lord doesn't know about. Could she be worried about being offed by LV, disposed of as so many others who had failed him have been? > 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights > that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's > edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in > the late 90's? Meri: Not being a sociologist, I got the impression that it was a poverty-stricken, working class place. There probably are lots of people living there, but they just aren't a visible kind of people (homeless squatters, etc.) if that makes any sense. It strikes me as a kind of place where illicit activity is rife, where people don't ask too many questions and where dark deeds can be committed without exposure to the light of day. What better place for a supposedly ex- DE to have his summer residence? > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? Meri: I think this has more to do with Bella having been in Azkaban for all these years. She's more out of the loop than the others might be, especially Narcissa, who through her husband may have even visited the place before. I don't remember getting the impression that Wormtail was particularly familiar with the place, but then again he may have been staying there for at least a year at that point, if he went into Snape's service directly following the graveyard in GoF. But as to Bella having socialized with Snape in school, can you imagine young Snape inviting a group of prepubescent DEs to his Muggle father's household for tea over the summer? Me neither. Until we get more cannon about young Sevvie, I'm just gonna leave this one alone. > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or > the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is > his usual home away from Hogwarts? Meri: I think that it tells us that we don't know nearly enough to make an informed guess about him. Now that we know definitively that Snape is a half-blood I personally see him in a different light (and can appreciate why he found LV's gospel so attractive: pure blood mother and halfblood son abused at the hands of a filthy, vile Muggle). Unlike LV, who has, as far as we know, shunned most of his heritage (other than a short stint in GoF we really have no cannon to suggest that he ever resided in the Riddle house during his first rise to power or that since his rebirth he has returned there), Snape lives in what I imagine to be his childhood home, and has kept a Muggle name for himself. He is also the self-titled Half Blood Prince, implying what I read to be a rather fierce pride in his past. But then again, that doesn't explain why he keeps it hidden now. > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the > feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? > How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Meri: Narcissa is a character whom I've always wondered about. How committed is she to the DEs and their ideology? Is she a Black through and through? Toujous Pur all the way? I'm not sure. Clearly, however, she loves Draco very much, regardless of his faults (things only a mother could be blind to, anyway) and doesn't seem to want him to follow in Daddy Malfoy's footsteps. But to me she seems desperate. Draco is an only child, he's all she has now that Lucius is in jail. What wouldn't she do to protect little Draco, and more importantly, now what is she going to do now that both her husband and her son are probably out of LV's good graces. I personally wouldn't be all that surprised (and I would be surprisingly upset) if the Daily Prophet's first headline in book seven was, "Malfoy Murders: Three members of prominent family found slaughtered in Wiltshire". Narcissa is probably ridiculously unimportant to LV in the long run. snip > 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? Meri: Reading this chapter the first time, my thoughts were: "Snape, you bonehead! An unbreakable vow? My god he really is evil!" But reading it twice there are so many double entendres of sorts. It is almost like reading GoF knowing that Moody is really Barty Crouch, Jr. You can see so many multiple meanings in everything, and since we don't know Snape's motivations yet we can have all this fun trying to sort them out. My second read through I was sure that Snape was lying about knowing about "the plan" but he just improvised to make it seem like he was more knowledgeable than he was. > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and > is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have > serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in > OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this > just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow > compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? Meri: Magic seems to have surprisingly binding powers over people, something that law doesn't have to enforce and that doles out its own punnishments for violations of magical contracts. (Side note: what would have happened to Harry had he not competed in the tournament?) In most stories that I recall, magical contracts are almost always fulfilled but there is also some sort of wiggle room for people to break out of them (one coming to mind was the Princess in the Rumplestillskin story getting out of giving up her firstborn son to the imp if she can guess his name in three nights, something that was not in the original contract) or to modify them at the last minute. But this doesn't seem to be the case in the HP universe. A contract is a contract is a contract and there's nothing to be done. > 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other > Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than > Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person limited- > omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the Muggle Prime > Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" dispenses with a point- > of-view > character altogether. Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if > we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic > or third-person objective > point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a > minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's > as if both the > narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene, > much like Harry on the tower. How does this change in the point of > view affect our reading of this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose > this point of view rather than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or > Bellatrix's mind? How does having a chapter written from a point of > view other than Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series > itself? Should JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to > maintain a Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? > Related link about Point of View: > http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/fiction/elements.asp?e=4 Meri: This one is fairly easily answered, I think: if we are in any of these character's heads, we know too much. What kind of mystery would there be if we knew what these characters were thinking? We'd know whose side Snape was on, what Bella really thought of the arrangement and what Narcissa wanted Snape to do. It would almost be like being in DD's head in chapter 1 of SS, "The Boy Who Lived": we'd just know way too much. It would also have skewered the chapter to one character instead of allowing each reader to interpret it without the framing of a particular viewpoint. We know that seeing most things through Harry's perspective doesn't always allow us an accurate view of things, maybe JKR was trying to be as clear as possible, for once. Just a couple of my own questions (hope you don't mind potioncat!): - Who was watching whom? Was Snape there to keep Wormtail that ever loving screw up from getting in to too much trouble? Or was Wormtail assigned to, ahem, tail the double agent and make sure everything was kept on the up and up? I wonder if LV would have placed Wormtail there if he didn't think the rat man could handle Snape. And I am also wondering what happened to the rat man when Snape went back to school. - Bella as a nickname for Bellatrix is now cannon, if it wasn't in OotP. But Narcissa being called Cissy (Sissy? I don't quite remember)? Does anyone else think that was a mite sugary? Or has the Won-won incident left a bad taste in my mouth? Meri - loving the chapter discussions... From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 24 17:47:44 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:47:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > > > Just a couple of my own questions (hope you don't mind potioncat!): > > - Who was watching whom? Was Snape there to keep Wormtail that ever > loving screw up from getting in to too much trouble? Or was Wormtail > assigned to, ahem, tail the double agent and make sure everything > was kept on the up and up? I wonder if LV would have placed Wormtail > there if he didn't think the rat man could handle Snape. And I am > also wondering what happened to the rat man when Snape went back to > school. > I think that Wormtail was watching Snape on Voldemort's orders. I do not think Voldy trusts anyone, and Snape is questionable. Notice that Wormtail begins to argue with Snape - about the fetching of drinks - but once Snape tells him that he can request new duties for Peter - Wormtail backs down. Peter is there on Voldemort's orders to spy on Snape, I believe. If word gets back to LV that Peter is kicking up a fuss and not wanting to do what Snape asks him to do, I think that LV will be very displeased with Peter. Peter's job is to *spy* and listen at doorways. I don't think Peter has ever done anything on his own, so I think this order came down from LV. > - Bella as a nickname for Bellatrix is now cannon, if it wasn't in > OotP. But Narcissa being called Cissy (Sissy? I don't quite > remember)? Does anyone else think that was a mite sugary? Or has the > Won-won incident left a bad taste in my mouth? Ah, I thought it was kinda cute. The sisters have nicks for each other - it is common. I don't think anyone else calls Narcissa Cissy - Snape certainly doesn't call her that nor does he call Bellatrix Bella. He doesn't even call Tonks as Tonks. I think Snape calls people by the first name - no nicknames allowed here! colebiancardi (who hated being called Shelly as a child - I would stamp my foot and tell them my name is Michele!) From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 24 18:05:15 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:05:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 2, Spinner's End. > > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? I think Bella has a heightened sense of awarement, due to her imprisonment at Azkaban, her escape and now the mistrust of Voldy towards her. However, I do think all of the DE's look over their shoulders - I would hate to be at a DE convention - I would imagine it would get very jumpy :) I did feel bad for the fox :( > > 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights > that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's > edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in > the late 90's? I am not a sociologist, but I imagined this to be in a poorer part of a town that was descimated by job layoffs and the economic woes from the 1980's. If this had been an industrial town, most likely all of its work was being shipped overseas within the last 15 - 20 years. And the people in the town don't seem to care about garbage - they litter and they don't have folks working in the town to clean up the mess. > > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? Well, Bella has been locked up for a while. I don't believe this is Snape's childhood home(if he has had an abusive father, why would he wish to stay in that home, with those memories) - I do believe this is a home he has bought during his time at Hogwarts and is a cover for him. I don't know if Pettigrew is familiar with the area - I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Pettigrew has been living there with Snape for a little while, so he would be familiar with the layout of the home by now. Narcissa knew where Snape lived - after all, Snape is her husband's friend. I do not think she is a frequent vistor to Snape's home - I think this is the first time she visited him there. She isn't suprised at where he lives, because I feel her husband has already told her about it. She knows how to get there - again, because of her hubby. > > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or > the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is > his usual home away from Hogwarts? Snape doesn't "live" there. I think it is a front - I don't think he comes there that often - but since Peter has been assigned to him, he is forced to stay there. I wonder if the rest of the house is just as dreary - if this is the receiving room for guests - YIKES! Snape's home needs a makeover - perhaps one of the Home Improvement shows can take over his home. > > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm > not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! > Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, > nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? > setting the magical mood and forshadowing the importance of *blood* - blood is very important in the book - the dragon's blood in the next chapter, the blood offering to open the cave by DD, the blood in the corner of DD's mouth... Oh, and the whole half-blood prince bit as well. Blood ties - pureblood, half blood... > 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? When I started reading this chapter and Snape started in with his explainations - I never once thought - OH NO - he IS evil. Not once. He is a double-agent and he will lie and misdirect and mislead. I did feel he did not know of Draco's deed . I felt that PP was there to spy on Snape, as Voldemort does not truly trust Snape (or anyone for that matter). I didn't know what Draco's deed was, but after the 3rd condition on the vow, when Snape's hand twitched, I knew it wasn't good - that it would result in an important someone's death - I was thinking DD after I read about his hand in the next chapter - I didn't think it was ever Harry. Images - Snape still being cool and disliking Narcissa's tears - Narcissa clutching at Snape's robes - Bella's disbelief at Snape - the slithering away comment(which leads me to believe that Snape, up to this point, has never killed anyone) > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and > is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have > serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in > OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this > just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow > compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? > Oh, I think this is a BIG deal. As Ron will later explain, a break in the UV will result in death. Also, Bella seems shocked that Snape will take an UV - so, I thought that it was a very big deal and Snape had to do it to cement the loyality of the Malfoys. As most other magical deals in other myths/tales have an *out*, I was suprised that there was no out - up until the 3rd condition of the vow, Snape has an out, but Cissy sealed the deal. I may not like Narcissa, but I have to hand it to her - she is a smart cookie. No flies on her :) thanks to Potioncat for some great questions - I will have to think about the last 2 - as they require more thought :) colebiancardi From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 24 18:20:17 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:20:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 2, Spinner's End> > > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? Marianne: I think Bella is jumpier than most people because she's the only escaped-from-Azkaban-DE still out and about. Plus, her nature strikes me as somewhat volatile, so I'd think she would easily fit into the "shoot first, ask questions later" camp. OTOH, maybe she's fixated on canine Animagi . > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? Marianne: Perhpas Snape got this place after he started teaching, which would be when Bella was in prison. I wonder if Bella's derogatory remarks are driven in part by her vain attempt to stop her sister from going ahead with this meeting, sort of an underhanded way to say, "He's not one of us!" > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or > the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is > his usual home away from Hogwarts? Marianne: Yes, I think it's Snape's usual home - it's dark and forbidding, just like him! > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. 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? Marianne: I think it was magical mood setting. But, if I was a guest, especially if I was unsure of my welcome, I don't know that I'd trust wine that a Potions Master selected for me! I would have brought my own bottle. > 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? Marianne: Things that struck me: -The contrasts of light and dark as the sisters moved through the streets, which mirrored their contrasting physical attributes. -Snape's explanations regarding how he has avoided what Bella considers "dangers" made me think of Phineas Nigellus' description of Slytherins in OoP : "We Slytherins are brave, but not stupid...we will always choose to save our own necks." - Snape referring to himself in the third person (p. 31 US ed.) This is after he's spoken at lenght about Harry's ordinary skills and Dumbledore's falling for Snape's tale of remorse. "He has never stopped trusting Severus Snape..." When I read this now, it reminded me of other instances when Snape doesn't refer to himself as "me" or "I" but at "Master of this School," "Potions Master," "the Half-Blood Prince." It just strikes ms as odd. > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and > is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have > serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in > OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this > just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow > compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? Marianne: The UV seems to be a high-level of magical contract, especially as death haunts the one making the vow. I think it is the only time the actions/speech of the makers of a vow call forth magic from a third person's wand. On a discussion of Snape on "The Sugar Quill" someone commented on a potential parallel. Snape swears to protect Draco in a ceremony sealed with fire. Years ago, Sirius swore to protect Harry as godparent in a ceremony which, I'm assuming, was sealed with water. Is there some significance to those two elements? Marianne From robert at robertgoodman.net Mon Oct 24 18:06:15 2005 From: robert at robertgoodman.net (Robert Goodman) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:06:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Fawkes? In-Reply-To: <005e01c5d83d$52d5dfc0$eb04810a@eowyn> Message-ID: <20051024180618.TJOZ1915.ibm67aec.bellsouth.net@MOBILEROBERT> No: HPFGUIDX 142037 Aussiegirl711 wrote: > > After DD's death, Fawkes is suddenly gone-perhaps to look for the > > horcruxes or maybe he is going to the actually alive DD? Lipa wrote: > I think that Fawkes is a real phoenix. We saw his (her?) rebirth > from ashes, we saw the healing power. We have been told that > Fawkes belonged to DD, not to Hogwarts, we saw the office of the > previous Headmaster without Fawkes. DD is dead (I believe that he > really is dead) and Fawkes has no reason to stay. > > I hope to see in Book 7 if the Order is somehow connected to Fawkes > (why is it called the Order of the Phoenix?). Harry could > certainly do with some additional magic. Robert: I believe Fawkes left with DD (though I wonder if DD would have somehow instructed to Fawkes to help the order if something happened). I do also believe DD IS dead. However my thoughts lead me to believe DD will be on the wall (in picture form) in the headmaster's office. Couldn't Harry communicate with him through the picture (if Hogwarts if even open)? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 18:39:57 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:39:57 -0000 Subject: That wretchedly annoying UV again -DD/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > > > "B.G." wrote: > >Everyone still ponders - why did DD trust Snape? ... Did DD ask > >Snape to enter into a UV with him to protect Harry? > > > > Saraquel: > I know that I've pondered about DD asking Snape to take a UV, but > decided that it would be very OOC for DD to do this. To my mind, a > UV is something that you ask someone to make when you do not trust > them to either make the right choices or follow through on their > word. > > ...MAHS... (Massively Annoying Huge Snip) [er... the snip is > annoying not the snipped content...just so we're clear...] > > Sarauqel bboyminn: Excellent analysis of the future of the Order, I'll address that in a separate post. On the subject of Dumbledore making Snape take the annoying Unbreakble Vow, I'm with Saraquel in the analysis posted. But I want to add a further point AGAINST the idea of a DD/Snape UV. If we can assume Snape is, or was intended to be, a double (or double-double) agent then it would be part of his job, standard opperational procedure, for him to betray each side at some point. That is the nature of being a spy of this type, at some point you have to provide some worthwhile information, as some point you have to prove your loyalty. Snape has proven his loyalty many times (in smaller ways) to Dumbledore, and now he has had to prove his loyalty to Voldemort. Either that, or quit the spy game altogether. So, that betrayal/disloyalty is not surprising because that's exactly what Double spies do. It's only in the final battle that the Double-Spies true loyatlies are proven. So, I would ask those who support the DD/Snape UV idea, exactly what would this Vow involve? If Snape swears loyalty to Dumbledore, then there is no way he can function effectively as a spy, which is the very job that Dumbledore will eventually need him to do. So, what could Snape swear that wouldn't interfer with potential future tasks? Spies must lie - so he can't swear to always tell the truth. Spies must betray each side at one point or another - so Snape can't swear loyalty. Spies must work for the enemy - so Snape can't swear to never work for Voldemort or the DE's. etc... Really, I don't see what Snape could possibly swear to that would assure his loyalty to Dumbledore and yet not interfer with his most important job as a spy. Keep in mind the HUGE difference between swearing a vow and swearing a UV. So, in my opinion, no DD/Snape UV. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 18:58:00 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:58:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142039 Potioncat wrote: > This appears to be the same day as chapter one, but in a very different location. Carol responds: You determined this from the image of the breeding Dementors at the beginning of the chapter, right? If so, I agree. I think they take place simultaneously. But what about chapter 3, to anticipate a little? I know that Ceridwen thinks that Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position coincides with this chapter timewise, so that Snape becomes DADA professor (without knowing it) just in time for the DADA curse to bind Snape in the form of the UV (specifically provision three) at the end of the chapter. I'm also wondering what others think about the timing of the chapters, as I'm absolutely convinced that the UV as it controls the action on the tower is the manifestation of the DADA curse, whether or not Snape is officially the DADA instructor when he takes it. But if he *is* the DADA instructor at the time of "Spinner's End," the curse could already be operating, trapping and dooming him before he even returns to Hogwarts. Potioncat: > Wormtail is also at the house and is called upon to serve elf-made wine. Snape sends him to his bedroom, and later blasts him with a spell to make certain he is not listening to the conversation. The relationship appears to be one of master and unwilling servant. Carol responds: At a guess, the spell is Impervius, the same one that Molly Weasley used in OoP to keep the kids from listening at the kitchen door, with an extra little blast thrown in to scare Wormtail, who has "lately taken to listening at doors." Snape says that he "[doesn't] know what [Wormtail] means by it" (HBP Am. ed. 25), but I think he knows quite well that LV's real reason for giving him Wormtail as an "assistant" is to have Wormtail spy on him. Claerly, someone other than the sisters has visited Snape recently at Spinner's End. Would DD or the Order members come there? It seems needlessly dangerous, given Wormtail's presence. Surely, DD would talk with him at Hogwarts or Hogsmeade and the others at Order HQ? Or maybe they don't trust the security of 12 GP with Sirius Black dead? (BTW, if Lupin or the real Moody knows about Spinner's End, Snape [and Wormtail] will probably have to move someplace else for Book 7.) Moreover, Snape refers to Wormtail as "vermin" in his own presence, indicating a degree of open contempt that he seldom shows with anyone else. Evidently Bellatrix shares this view, as she knows that his betrayal of the Potters led indirectly to her master's downfall at Godric's Hollow, but Snape's reasons for this view may be more complex. It reminds me of Crouch!Moody, disguising his hatred of DEs who walked free by pretending that it's an Auror's hatred of criminals who escaped prison when in fact it's a loyal DE's hatred of his "disloyal" comrades. ESE!Snape would hold Wormtail in contempt for the same reasons Bella does, but DDM!Snape would look down his nose at him for betraying his friends, when he, Snape, tried to prevent their deaths even though he hated James Potter. And it seems significant, too, that Snape also dislikes Bella, whom he treats with amused disdain (and occasional impatience). BTW, I think that Wormtail is somewhat intimidated by Snape, but he's much more afraid of Voldemort, which is why he chooses not to ask for a more dangerous assignment. (Maybe they'll become reluctant allies now that they're both wanted criminals, assuming that they both hate LV?) > Potioncat: > At Snape's request, Bella brings up many reasons for distrusting him. He counters with explanations for his absences at certain Death Eater events. Others must doubt his loyalty as well because he tells her, "You can carry my words back to the others who whisper behind my back, and carry false tales of my treachery to the Dark Lord!" Carol responds: I think that the whole first half of the chapter (not counting the section which shows us the sisters alone and establishes their motives and respective views of Snape) tells us exactly what Snape has told the Dark Lord (with a few embellishments). It explains how he managed to stay alive after returning to LV two hours after the graveyard scene: Snape as superlative actor and Occlumens, fooling the wizard that Bella believes to be the world's greatest Legilimens (a point that Snape raises rhetorically and that she doesn't dare to challenge despite her doubts regarding Snape's loyalty). What the chapter does *not* give is the absolute truth about his actions and motives (a point I hope to explore in more detail at a later date). But in talking with Bella, Snape accomplishes two objectives: silencing (or pacifying) her and getting her to share what she hears with the other DEs. Evidently she does exactly that (having been further convinced of his loyalty to *her* master by the UV), given the way the DEs on the tower defer to Snape, clearly accepting him as LV's new favorite and an authority figure whose orders are to be obeyed. Deep cover for DDM's man or a coup for OFH!ESE!Snape? It could work either way (though I'm convinced that it's the first). Potioncat: > Narcissa asks for Snape's help. Yes, and note how Narcissa herslef defines "help" after Snape hesitantly states that it "might be possible . . . . for me to help Draco" (HBP Am. ed., 35, ellipsis in original): "Severus--oh, Severus--you would help him? Would you look after him, see he comes to no harm?" (35). *This* is exactly what Snape is expecting to swear to do, along with protecting Draco (mentioned by Narcissa in her next sentence), when he agrees, after a moment of silence and one of his famous inscrutable expressions, to take the Unbreakable Vow--exactly what he would do, anyway, as friend of the family, Hogwarts teacher, Draco's Head of House--and Dumbledore's Man, as we know from DD's own orders later in the book. Snape knows that the UV entails the risk of death, but he takes such risks every day as double agent, and taking the UV has the advantage of quenching Bellatrix's remaining doubts, perhaps prompting her to share what he's told her with the other doubting DEs as he requested. (The UV itself she's likely to keep secret.) Still in control, as shown by his stating that she'll need her wand and telling her to step closer, he takes a calculated risk, expecting to be able to "help" Draco by "seeing that he comes to no harm" as opposed to helping him accomplish his objective, whether he knows what it is or not. But we all know from the hand twitch that he wasn't expecting that third provision. Although the vow itself is ominous, with its twisting wires of fire, it's only at that moment that the spinner is caught in his own web--and knows it. Why he says "I will" at that point remains open to debate, but one reason was surely that to back out at that point would undo everything he had accomplished with Bellatrix in the first half of the encounter. And of course, the DADA curse, if it was already in effect, may have distorted his judgment, or even prompted Narcissa, in her eagerness to protect her son, to unwittingly trap her own friend and protector, whose loyalty to LV she does not question. BTW, while Snape tells Bella and Cissy that he "spun a tale of deepest remorse," it's equally likely that the tale he "spun" is the one he carefully worked out in advance of encountering Voldemort near the end of GoF. One or the other (or both) is fabricated of half truths or lies, and it's clear that Snape is suppressing some information in his tale to Bella--among other things, his spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" before accepting the Potions position in lieu of DADA and his saving DD's life after DD sustained his recent injury. Notice that Snape doesn't describe the injury, which he attributes to "slowed reflexes," knowing full well that it was the result of an encounter with a cursed object (he must have identified the specific curse since he performed the countercurse). I'm guessing that the absolute trust DD shows for Snape in HBP would lead him to tell Snape that the cursed object was a Horcrux. And if he saw the cracked ring, as he surely must have, he would have known it was an heirloom of Slytherin and must have belonged to Voldemort. Even if he doesn't know it's a Horcrux, he is clearly concealing information that would reveal him as DDM. "Spun a tale of deepest remorse" indeed--but not to Dumbledore, IMHO. Carol, thanking Potioncat for the excellent discussion questions, which she'll return to in a separate post From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 19:26:11 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:26:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142040 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Pippin wrote: > > > You determined these endpoints by consulting an almanac or > something similar, but would JKR bother to do that? Nowhere else > in canon does she approach times or dates with that kind of > versimilitude. I guess she would simply rely on her subjective > opinion that summer nights in northern Scotland are relatively > short. > > Neri responded: > > JKR has lived several years in Scotland and she knows that sunset > > in the summer there is around 10pm (using DST now). > > This establishes that ... Umbridge takes Harry to the forest > > before 9:00. Conclusion: when it's important to the > > plot JKR is consistent and exact about the timing. The relation > > between dinnertime, the sun's position and the time of sunset is > > consistent over both PoA and OotP. > > > > ... > > Carol responds: > ...edited... > > That aside, I'll grant you that she has figured out the timing of > *Harry's* actions with some precision, .... Even if, realizing this > deficiency, she sat down with an almanac to figure out the timing > of *Harry's* actions, chances are she has *not* figured out exactly > how Snape's actions ... would fit the requirements of the plot. She > doesn't even seem to notice that it would make more sense for him > to go into the forest *before* contacting the Order the second time. > ... > > What JKR needs .. Harry ... in... the forest with Hermione and > Umbridge, ditch Umbridge, be rejoined by their DA friends, fly to > the MoM, be met by the DEs, fight the DEs, be rescued by the Order > just in time, then have Harry fight Bellatrix and have Voldie arrive > followed by DD just in time to fight him. ... > > For Snape, ... to discover .. Sirius is not missing ..., discover > Harry's whereabouts and figure out that he has ... leave the forest > without a broom him ..., to search the forest when ... Harry hasn't > returned, to contact DD ..., and to re-contact the Order, > ...edited... > > Carol, ... bboyminn: To some extent, I'm with Carol on this one. It's easy to find fault in the timeline when you only take into account what you are told; that is, what is in the forefront of the narrative. But the apparent missing time is all in the background. When you analyse the time line in this fashion - event, event, event, event - it's easy to come up with missing time, but that is not how /events/ play out. What you really have is - wait, event, wait, event wait, event, wait, event. That paints a completely different picture. As an example, it's easy to find fault with Snape's actions if you only look at surface events and assume instantaneous realization of facts not in evidence followed by instantaneous action. Snape isn't called to Umbridge's office until some TIME has passed. When he leaves, he contacts the Order, and Sirius seems OK; all of which took time. So, no problem, he goes back to his office and waits. So, he waits, and eventually after a significant passage of time, it comes to his attention that Draco and his gang have been attacked and that Harry has been taken into the forest by Umbridge. Well, that's not a good situation, but Harry is with the Headmistress and she is armed, so what is there to do but wait for them to get back. So, he waits. Eventually, he wonders whether everything is alright, but no evidence to the contrary, so he waits. Then he worries that maybe some thing DID go wrong, but still, they are in the forest and they are with Umbridge. So, he waits. Now, eventually he is REALLY WORRIED, concerned that indeed something has gone wrong, but what? So, he waits and he ponders, and eventually, he concludes that he must go looking for them. I'm sure he was very annoyed at the prospect. So, he looks and that takes time; it is afteral a big forest. As he searches the forest, he wonders, then he worries, then he concludes that perhaps Harry has found a way to get to London...but how? So, he decides to leave the forest and contact some people and warn them that Harry might be on his way to London. So how much time does that take; all that waiting, wondering, worrying, and then all that searching and then the return from some unknown location deep in the forest? That is a lot of time, and very reasonable time. If you are a parent, haven't you ever worried about your kids? If the aren't were you expect them to be at the precise instant you expect them to be there, do you instantly panic and call out the troops, or do you give them some time, do you wait and see? I suspect, within reason, you wait, and waiting takes time; lots of time. So, the analysis of the timeline of the events of that night only seem flawed if you ignore the very logical and very substantial WAITING. An hour of waiting and wondering that eventually reaches a state of worrying, and eventually worrying to the point of action is actually a very short period of time. So, yes, -event, event, event, event- doesn't add up, but - one hour waiting, event, one hour, event, one hour, event, one hour, event- comes pretty close, and in many cases those /one hour/ of waiting are actually unrealistically SHORT periods of time. I know I've said all of the above before, but I do love the sound of my own electrons. Steve/bboyminn From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Mon Oct 24 19:17:39 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:17:39 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142041 > hg wrote (snip): > I think Harry had the real thing, and it wasn't working anymore by > the time he got the memory. Lucianam: Well, the reason I don't think Harry had the Felix Felicis is because I think the first-years stole it and because I think the memory he gave Dumbledore was the wrong one. Of course he could still have got the wrong memory with FF, but putting the two arguments together I find it easier to believe he didn't really drink FF. hg also wrote (snip): > I do think he got the right memory, freely given him by Slughorn. > Although the question of Time travel is really interesting (yes, I > did read your other post!), I don't see the connection here, only > because I don't agree that the memory he gives Harry is the modified > version. > In regards, then, to your other post, you didn't tie in the RAB thing > you mentioned in this one, but I don't think it's possible for him to > be talking to Regulus because it would be decades before Regulus' > birth. If you are still running with this theory, whom else might > you suggest he's talking to? Oh, but I don't think memories work as real life. You can remember something that happened last year and mix it up with something else that happened last month. I mean, memories do not have dates to them. The Tom Riddle/pineapple memory (if it is indeed a memory used as a "mix-up" and not something entirely made up) happened 50 years ago; the foggy memory could have happened any time. If the boy Slughorn is shouting with is R.A.B. (more likely, because Regulus was in his house at Hogwarts and mixing the two scenarios would be plausible), that happened about 20 years ago. If the boy is ... Percy Weasly, or Draco Malfoy, or someone else in the present, the foggy memory most likely happened not many months ago. Remember there was a clock chiming 11 o'clock in the Riddle/pineapple memory, just before the first 'fog break' happened? Well, it is a big coincidence that Harry and Dumbledore arrived at Slughorn's house just a little after midnight. What if Slughorn really had had visitors that night, around 11 o'clock? We don't know anything about the 'art' of tempering with memories. Maybe you mix up two memories and try to synchronize them? Or, to Slughorn's bad luck, he happened to choose a memory that had a clock chiming 11 o'clock in it, and that sort of 'triggered' a 'leak' of the real memory underneath it, because in the real memory something did happen at 11 o'clock? Lucianam > From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Mon Oct 24 19:30:32 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:30:32 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142042 > Lucianam: > > I suspect he uses that watch of him to Time Travel (the one we see > in the first chapter or PS/SS). Now that Ron's got a similar one (from > Dumbledore himself??) I suspect the kids will Time Travel again in Book 7. > > > Valky: > I'll put Galleons on it, Lucianam. I would even have a crack at the > timeframe they will return to in case you're interested. The battle at > the D.O.M. You heard *that* here first > Lucianam D.O.M.? Really? Why, would you like to elaborate on that? And you know, it's funny how people responded well to the idea of TT! Dumbledore but not to the real memory being the foggy one. For me, TT!Dumbledore is a spinoff of Real Memory Is The Foggy One, because it explains how DD accepted the memory Slughorn gave Harry as okay. Lucianam From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 20:07:49 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:07:49 -0000 Subject: Where would Harry go? WAS: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: <435C76D4.8030809@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142043 KJ writes: I don't think that it is likely that Harry will travel back in time to Godric's Hollow as he simply could never be trusted not to change the course of history. He could not destroy Voldemort in that time period because he would not have destroyed the horcruxes yet, and if he prevented his mother's death, he would not have had the protections that kept him alive. I wonder if there would be a way to get around those issues? Bookworm: And, yet, if Harry goes rushing off before he has found all of the horcurxes, this might explain *why* Voldemort became Vapor!mort instead of being killed by the ricocheting AK. It sounds like the kind of unthinking reaction Harry would have if he finds out that Ron's watch is a TT. Or Ron might have come up with the idea and Harry jumped on it. ---- "That's a time turner, Ron? We can go back to the the Ministry and save Sirius!" "I wonder how far back in time we can go? Do you think it would take us back 15 years?" "The night Voldemort killed my parents! We can save them now. Come on! Let's go!" ----- Of course, Hermione would have to be someplace else when this conversation takes place - the library, maybe - or she would have spotted the inherent problems immediately. This also might explain the missing 24 hours. Dumbledore was busy cleaning up after the mess TT!Harry and TT!Ron made of events. Playing Devil's Advocate, here - I'm not convinced this really happened, but think it sounds in character for the boys. I do think the TTs will play a role in the last book. Ravenclaw Bookworm From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 20:12:56 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:12:56 -0000 Subject: That wretchedly annoying UV again -DD/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142044 > bboyminn wrote: > So, I would ask those who support the DD/Snape UV idea, exactly what > would this Vow involve? If Snape swears loyalty to Dumbledore, then > there is no way he can function effectively as a spy, which is the > very job that Dumbledore will eventually need him to do. So, what > could Snape swear that wouldn't interfer with potential future tasks? > > Really, I don't see what Snape could possibly swear to that would > assure his loyalty to Dumbledore and yet not interfer with his most > important job as a spy. Keep in mind the HUGE difference between > swearing a vow and swearing a UV. > > So, in my opinion, no DD/Snape UV. zgirnius: I would not be 100% surprised if it turned out that Snape did have a UV with Dumbledore. I don't see it as something Dumbledore would ask of Snape (or anyone else) but it does make sense to me as something that Snape could conceivably have offered to a skeptical Dumbledore as proof of his sincerity. (And there is that little bit where Snape is instructing Bella in what she needs to do-has he seen one before?) Though I would not go so far as to say I definitely believe this theory... First, a UV cannot ensure loyalty, you are totally right there IMO. (Actually, almost by definition, loyalty enforced by a magically binding contract is something else...) Obviously the wording would have to be flexible, as you point out. For Snape to function as a spy he would need to have some discretion to pass secrets on to Voldemort, and perform services for him to protect his cover. So the terms would need to be things that are either very specific and limited in scope, or that are so fundamentally important from DD's point of view that he would value them over protecting Snape's cover. This would make the UV less of a guarantee of Snape's good behavior, and more of a form of damage control, in the event it should prove Snape is not trustworthy. Possibilities: 1) To protect Harry specifically, and Hogwarts students generally, from attacks by V and his supporters while at Hogwarts, through his best efforts at prevention/protection, and by not in any way acting to further such attacks himself. This can probably be vague enough to allow Snape off the hook if he fails in any instance to do so due to honest mistakes ("Moody"?), while presumably preventing him from conspiring in any such attacks. Narcissa, at least, seems to believe that a UV to do something to the best of one's ability has some value... The point of this Vow would be that by accepting the offer of Snape's service, DD is not placing his students in mortal danger. Which I think he would value this above Snape's usefulness as a spy. 2) To reveal to Dumbledore all he learns about V and the DEs plans, say, by the next time they meet for a debriefing. This would not blow Snape's cover unless DD *acted* on such knowledge, DD could decide for himself or in consulatation with Snape which information to act upon. It would ensure that Snape would be of *some* use to DD as a spy in that information would get passed on. And it would prevent V from enjoying the misinformation benefits of using Snape as a double agent, since a scheme to pass false information to DD via Snape would in itself be a plan of Voldemort. Unless V fooled Snape himself. Which would be a problem even with a 100% loya; DDMan!Snape. 3) Similarly, to keep secrets specified by Dumbledore. (For example, if he knows them, the *details* of how a certain hand injury came about...or, the identity of the Seer that told the Prophecy). This would ensure secrets of critical importance to DD would not get out via Snape. I like to speculate that Hagrid might have been the Bonder in such a Vow...love the image of Hagrid looming over both of them, pink umbrella extended over theopr clasped hands... From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 20:20:46 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:20:46 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_"=E2=80=9Cpeaceful_expression=E2=80=3F=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142045 > Pippin: > But Hogwarts is well north of Edinburgh, where JKR lives, and she may have only a vague > idea of how much earlier dawn is as you go north. F'rinstance, I have a vague memory of it > being light in May in Leningrad (which shows you that it was a long time ago) at 2 AM. > Maybe Leningrad is well north of Hogwarts, and maybe it was really three. But that's my > impression, and if I were writing a story I might not bother to look it up, especially if it > wasn't really important. You've got a circular argument going -- JKR would have looked > the time up if it was important, but it's only important if there was a delay, and we only > know there was a delay because of the time... > Neri: The argument isn't circular, because I demonstrated (up thread, the part you snipped) that the timing is consistent with the PoA climax, and in PoA the time is certainly important. The whole plot is built on it. Moreover, the fact that the timing is consistent between PoA and OotP, written several years apart, shows that either JKR remembers it very well, or she used the same time table to write both books, probably taken from some weather site (there's no need to go as far as an almanac). I don't think we know that Hogwarts is north of Edinburgh, and if so is it by significant amount. The time of sunset in the PoA climax (considerably after 9:00 but most probably not later than 10:00) fits with the real time of sunset at Edinburgh in the summer. > Pippin: > Imagining an alternate means of communication is not only wildly speculative, it opens an > industrial size can of worms. Neri: I'm not imagining any alternate means of communication. I'm only saying it's unlikely the Order would isolate Snape in an impossible situation during so sensitive a time. They had a day to decide how to respond after the attack on Hagrid and McGonagall. For example, station some people in the Hogs Head when they are available by a 5 minutes patronus (BTW, why didn't Snape send his patronus to Aberforth, who surely can apparate or find a secure fire to 12GP?). The possibilities are numerous without assuming anything really speculative. If the Order did isolate Snape, then they were the weak link, but I think it would be very OOC for them to do so after they worry so much about Harry's security throughout the book. It just seems much more probable that Snape was the weak link. > Pippin: > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic- chat.htm > Question: How does the wizarding world protect Muggle banks and vaults, etc. from > wizards apparating into them and stealing the contents? > > J.K. Rowling responds: Well, the Ministry of Magic keeps tabs on people apparating. That's > why you have to have a license to do it, and the moment you abuse it you can find yourself > in serious trouble (or Azkaban!). > Neri: I suspect you misinterpret this. When she says the Ministry "keeps tabs on people apparating" I think she means something more similar to the way that the muggle government keeps tab on people driving. It doesn't necessarily mean that they know who drives to where and when. I doubt the Ministry can track Order members apparating to the Hogwarts gates (or alternatively to Hogsmeade, and then walking the short distance to Hogwarts). If the Ministry could do that they would know to where Dumbledore and Harry apparated and when they came back, and they'd know to where Snape apparated when he ran away, and that just to start with. This *would* open a whole can of worms. Neri From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 24 20:47:01 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:47:01 -0000 Subject: Timing: was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142046 > Carol: > You determined this from the image of the breeding Dementors at the > beginning of the chapter, right? If so, I agree. I think they take > place simultaneously. > > But what about chapter 3, to anticipate a little? I know that Ceridwen > thinks that Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position coincides > with this chapter timewise, so that Snape becomes DADA professor > (without knowing it) just in time for the DADA curse to bind Snape in > the form of the UV (specifically provision three) at the end of the > chapter. I'm also wondering what others think about the timing of the > chapters, as I'm absolutely convinced that the UV as it controls the > action on the tower is the manifestation of the DADA curse, whether or > not Snape is officially the DADA instructor when he takes it. But if > he *is* the DADA instructor at the time of "Spinner's End," the curse > could already be operating, trapping and dooming him before he even > returns to Hogwarts. Ceridwen: Since you mentioned it, I'll try to explain. I'll mark the post seperate from the chapter discussion so I won't confuse it (or me!) any more than necessary. I'm not too good at explaining, so bear with me! I think that chapters one and three, are concurrent, or nearly concurrent, as are chapters two and four. There may be some overlap. In 'The Other Minister', it was 'nearing midnight' as the chapter opens. It doesn't say how near to midnight it is. Dumbledore is to come for Harry at eleven p.m. The image of breeding Dementors is used in both chapters one and two and seems to tie the two together as being on the same night. Chapters three and four, Dumbledore's cozy visit with the Dursleys, then his and Harry's visit to Slughorn in 'the charming village of Budleigh Babberton' are obviously consecutive. When they leave the Dursleys' house, they step out into 'cold, misty darkness' evoking the Dementor breeding fog again. When DD and Harry Apparate to BB, the church clock reads a few minutes until midnight. Probably about the time Fudge and Scrimgeour are leaving the PM's office. Chapter 1 seemed longer, through the device of the PM's thoughts. What takes paragraphs to relate probably only took seconds of time for him to think. Cissy and Bella go to Spinner's End on what is apparently the same night as the PM's unexpected visit. The tie-in with the Dementor fog. It seems to follow right on the heels of The Other Minister, both in time and in the book... (Odd thought just now, all four chapters include unexpected visitations) *IF* (a very big word for so few leters) chapters 1 and 2 are consecutive, and *IF* chapters 3 and 4 are on the same night, and *IF* the times are the same or nearly the same, that would put Cissy and Bella Apparating at about the same time, or thereabouts, as Harry and Dumbledore. Big leap: I believe that the street called Spinner's End is in the charming village of Budleigh Babberton. The only piece of canon I can offer is Snape looking out the window. I think he was looking for someone or something. He doesn't raise the curtain, but peers out. I think he's there to keep an eye on Slughorn for DD, and he knows DD is supposed to be in town that night to talk to Slughorn. So he says he knows the reason, to keep the sisters talking a bit longer so Dumbledore and Harry can get out of the twisting streets near Spinner's End and to the town center. And, I think he and DD talked it over before book 6 begins. If they are to get Slughorn to come and teach at Hogwarts (both to get the memory and for Sluggy's own protection, why else is he squatting in someone else's house?) they need to free up the Potions position. I do think DD thought Slughorn would come around and agree to teach, but nominally, it was provisional - if Slughorn agrees to teach, he will teach Potions and Snape will step aside into the DADA slot. Snape's just about got the DADA, all they're waiting for is the formality of Slughorn accepting. And, as Carol mentioned, I think the point where Slughorn stops Dumbledore and Harry and accepts, is the approximate point where Snape is taking the UV. The sudden, unannounced third provision is the point when Snape realizes Slughorn has accepted, and the DADA curse has just kicked in. Hm, I do have one more possible trail of canon to connect the run- down area of Spinner's End with the less unattractive village of BB (or is it just Harry not noticing that the dark windows are deserted?) - the twists and turns it takes to get from the river to Spinner's End, and from the point of Apparation to Slughorn's temporary abode. Slughorn says he had about two minutes' warning of their approach. I take this to mean he has some sort of magical detection spells or devices set at about two minutes away. DD Apparates outside of the alarms. *IF* Snape is in BB, his residence is also just outside of the alarms. I know it's a long-shot on Spinner's End being in Budleigh Babberton. There are probably plenty of towns with run-down sections, remnants of the early Industrial Age. They probably all have warrens of twisting streets in them, deserted houses, and couples in the better sections who go away for at least part of the summer so a wizard like Slughorn can move in. But it seems to me that there's a method here, tying the four chapters together. It does amuse me, and explains the slight movement of curtain the text suggests to me, rather than the broader sweep of open curtains which allows Snape to Legilimens Narcissa in the glass undetected. I just hope I'm not falling into another JKR time-warp! Ceridwen. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 21:35:15 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Gavin ODriscoll) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:35:15 -0000 Subject: Timing: was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142047 > Ceridwen: > Big leap: I believe that the street called Spinner's End is in the > charming village of Budleigh Babberton. Goddlefrood, with his English cap on: I do not have HBP in front of me, however it is extraordinarily unlikely that Spinner's End is in Budleigh Babberton. The reason for this is because of Dumbledore's description of Budleigh Babberton as a charming village. Some exposition. I am an Englishman with an Irish name and Lithuanian roots. I now live in Fiji. I spent my youth and early adulthood in England living in variously villages, towns and cities. It appears to me from what biographocal material we have to hand that JKR did also. When an Englishwoman describes a charming village, as JKR does thorugh Dumbledore, then it would be a small place, usually with no industrial activity whatsoever, and it most certainly would not contain a street like Spinner's End. The description of Budleigh Babberton sounds to me like it is in the south of England. The house at Spinner's End is in a terrace and is described as being in a town in northern England. The little description we have would suggest it is particularly in the northeast of England. Hope this is helpful. Additionally I would suggest that Snape was appopinted DADA professor well before Dumbledore's visit to Slughorn, probably at the end of Harry's fifth year. TTFN Goddlefrood From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 24 21:42:23 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:42:23 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_blond_Death_Eater_=96_A_further_appraisal_with_conclusions?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142048 Goddlefrood wrote, concerning the likelihood of the BBDE's being Ludo Bagman: > (ii) He played Beater for Wimbourne Wasps and England. > (vii) Lastly Lupin on page 579 says: "Well, the big Death Eater > had just fired off a hex that caused half the ceiling to fall in". SSSusan: With apologies for snipping the entire essay down to this small bit, this is the one part which stuck out to me. Presumably, given how much it's talked about in the books, Bagman was an extremely popular Quidditch player, a star. The implication, certainly, was that several members of the Wizengamot who should have been seriously considering Bagman's guilt did not do so because they were gushing over him and star-struck by his celebrity. There is no question that he is well known in the WW, is there? With his work with the Quidditch World Cup? With his being invited to assist with the TWT and all that? So given all that, wouldn't it be rather surprising that Remus Lupin would have described this man as "the big Death Eater"? It seems to me that Lupin, given his age and all those years of hearing about, reading about, seeing photos of Badman, could be expected to know Ludo Bagman's appearance quite well. And if he recognized him as Bagman, I can't for a moment believe he wouldn't have identified him by name. I know you argued that Bagman's appearance might have changed in the two years since he was last seen, but I'm not convinced why we should believe that. Do we have canon, really, for anybody else's appearance changing so drastically in such a short time as to be unrecognizable? Even Sirius and Bella, after spending all that time in Azkaban, even Pettigrew after spending all those years transformed as Scabbers, were still recognizable. Siriusly Snapey Susan From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 22:00:02 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Gavin ODriscoll) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:00:02 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_blond_Death_Eater_=96_A_further_appraisal_with_conclusions?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142049 > SSSusan: > Do we have canon, really, for anybody else's > appearance changing so drastically in such a short time as to be > unrecognizable? Goddlefrood responds: Well yes, actually we do. Sirius himself as you mention him. If you recall when he is first described in detail in the Shrieking Shack in POA. Therein he is said to be hollow faced and practically unrecognisable as the person who smiled so happily at the Potters' wedding. It is only latter when he does smile that Harry sees a vage resemblance. Moving forward less than two years to when we meet Sirius at Number Twelve Grimmaud Place in OotP his appearance has changed quite appreciably and he is said to bear a strong resemblance to the person who smiled happily at the Potters' wedding. Also there is no indication that, apart from Tonks, anyone got a close look at the BBDE's face, as I think I mentioned in the earlier post. There is also a good likelihood that the DEs were hooded and the only facet of the BBDE described, other than his sixe, is his hair colur, which could quite easily have been long enoung to extend below such a hood. Goddlefrood From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 22:01:56 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:01:56 -0000 Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142050 > Carol responds: > First, I'm not sure what you mean by "JKR's privet clock." Neri: I meant private, of course. The way she imagines the time to be in the story, as opposed to the true times of sunset and dawn in 1996 (or whatever it was) at some point in Scotland. > Carol: > That aside, I'll grant you that she has figured out the timing of > *Harry's* actions with some precision, even though this is the same > woman who thinks that Charlie Weasley, the star Seeker without whom > Gryffindor couldn't win a match until Harry arrived, can be two > (changed to three) years older than Percy and yet Gryffindor hasn't > won a match in seven years. (Huh?) I won't go into the other examples > of her maths inadequacies, but we all know they exist and she admits > them herself. Even if, realizing this deficiency, she sat down with an > almanac to figure out the timing of *Harry's* actions, chances are she > has *not* figured out exactly how Snape's actions (which she touches > on only to show why DD still trusts Snape) would fit the requirements > of the plot. Neri: First, there's no need for an almanac. You just google "Edinburgh" (or any other nearby city), "sunset" and "sunrise" and you immediately get several weather and astronomy sites that would supply you with the numbers. She doesn't even need to be so exact as to go for any specific year. Secondly, why would JKR bother to plot the timing of Harry's actions in such a consistent way? In PoA it was because of the time-travel plot. Here, it could be exactly in order to synchronize them with the actions of the other characters, which are surely critical for the plot. > Carol: > She doesn't even seem to notice that it would make more > sense for him to go into the forest *before* contacting the Order the > second time. (DD, being highly intelligent, would see this as well, as > would the relentlessly logical Snape. I see no other way that he could > have figured out that Harry and his friends were indeed gone.) > Neri: If Snape deduced Harry could catch a thestral and fly to the DoM, as Dumbledore said he did, then IMHO it would be *much* more logical for him to warn the Order about this before he goes to the forest. This way both possibilities (Harry in the DoM and Harry in the forest) are covered immediately, and especially the more dangerous of the two. > Carol: > What JKR needs is for Harry to get into the forest with Hermione and > Umbridge, ditch Umbridge, be rejoined by their DA friends, fly to the > MoM, be met by the DEs, fight the DEs, be rescued by the Order just in > time, then have Harry fight Bellatrix and have Voldie arrive followed > by DD just in time to fight him. This plot requires that the Order be > delayed and that DD be delayed even more so that his arrival roughly > coincides with Voldie's (accomplished through his talk with Kreacher > at Order HQ). Neri: There's a very simple way to achieve this: just avoid having Umbridge summon Snape to her office. He simply wouldn't know about all this, find out from the Slyths several hours later that Umbridge took Harry to the forest and that they didn't came back yet. Then Snape would do the most natural thing to do in such a situation: inform HQ about it. HQ would do the most natural thing from their point of view ? check on the status of the guard in the DoM - and would get mo answer. That all it takes, and no one would accuse poor Snapie. Instead JKR throws Snape into the middle of the plot, she has Harry raising suspicions about his resposibility, she has Dumbledore explaining it in a rather unsatisfactory way, and she charts the times of Harry's rescue mission from beginning to end, including seeing the first light of dawn from Dumbledore's office window ? a rather pointed detail when IIRC she had never even mentioned this window in any of Harry's previous visits in this office. > Carol: > *The plot* requires Snape to contact the Order at about the time the > kids are fighting the DEs (setting aside whatever time it takes them > to get organized and arrive at the DoM, into which you can't Apparate > directly). It's clear from the sketchy and somewhat inconsistent > details of Snape's side of the action that JKR has not thought it > through nearly as fully as she has thought through the fully enacted > Harry scenes. Neri: Or that she thought them quite fully, for leaving a possibility that Snape wasn't on the Order's side, or that he simply didn't care much about Harry. > Carol: > It's also clear, as has been repeatedly stated on this > list, that neither Dumbledore nor Bellatrix considered the Order's > arrival to be excessively delayed. > Neri: I have repeatedly answered this argument. > Carol: > And if it didn't, blame the requirements of JKR's plot, not Snape, > without whose action in sending the Order to the MoM, Harry and his > friends would be dead. > Neri: I don't know yet what are the requirements of JKR's plot. I'll know that only after Book 7. All I can say for now is that certain developments and well-specified timelines don't fit the official explanation very well, but OTOH could fit quite well with an ending in which Snape isn't the hero who always has Harry well-being and the Order's cause in mind. Neri From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 22:03:56 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:03:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 2, Spinner's End. > > > Summary: > This appears to be the same day as chapter one, but in a very > different location. A dark mood is set at once with the description > of a disused mill, deserted buildings, and a dirty river. Words > like "shadowy", "ominous" and "no sign of life" round out the > setting. > > ...edited... > > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this > trigger happy, or is it just Bella? > bboyminn: Others have covered this nicely. I think several factors come into play. First, Bella has just escaped from Azkaban, that has to have left her a little jumpy. Given her reputation, and being an escaped convict, it's not wise for her to be out in public. Although, this dim dreary neighborhood, could hardly be considered 'public'. Second, the OotP Ministry of Magic-Dept of Mysteries fiasco did not go well. Bellatrix was one of the few things Voldemort managed to salvage from the operation, though I'm quite sure he is very displeased with Bella, and that he /demonstrated/ that displeasure on the only person he had available. Third, independant of the Auror and Law Enforcement office being after her, I'm sure Bella has made more than her share of enemies amoung the general wizards populations. I suspect if a wizard saw her and killed her on the spot, the Ministry would be more likely to give him a medal than punish him. Short version, she has more than enough reasons to be jumpy, and more than enough reasons to 'shoot' first and ask questions later. > 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights > that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's > edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood > in the late 90's? > bboyminn: London is a huge and diverse city, in addition to being a city with a VERY long history. I suspect neighborhoods are falling into decline and are being rebuilt all the time. I suspect that, as others have pointed out, this is a working class neighborhood (small houses) that has fallen on hard times. Given the outlandish real estate prices in London, and the fact that Snape would only be there a few month over the summer, I suspect that this is the best he could do and as much as he needed. I doubt that it is his childhood home. I suspect it is merely a house he bought or leased as a residence when school is not in session. > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught > by surprise ... at the location. She ... doubts that any of "our > kind" has ever set foot there. ... How long do you think Snape has > been using this location? > bboyminn: I think Bella's comment about 'our kind' means rich and priviledged. She sees herself above the petty mundane lives of commoners, muggles, and other riff-raff. She would never lower herself to being in a shabby neighborhood like this, and certainly, at least in her mind, would never live in such an undignified area. As to her unfamiliarity with the area; being friends, the Malfoys might know where Snape lives, and I could see Lucius, with noticable distain, as having been there, but I severly doubt that Narcissa or Draco would have ever visited. Still, having been there or not, it seems reasonable the Narcissa would at least know where Snape lived. Bella on the other hand has been in prison, and would have no reason or occassion to know where Snape lived. Given the number of books there, Snape is either borrowing someone else house, or he has been settle into the house for a long time. So, I suspect this is his premanent 'away from Hogwarts' residence. One small aspect of uncertainty, when we meet Slughorn in the house he is 'borrowing', it seems he has brought an awfull lot of stuff with him for someone who moves so often. I believe even the piano was his, and he moved it from location to location. That somewhat warps the preception that Snape has been in his house a long time. If Slughorn can move a piano and more so easily, the it wouldn't be that hard for Snape to move his precious book collection. Still, I'm going with the idea that this is Snape's permanent summer home. > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." ... > bboyminn: I think the 'padded cell' comment was a narrative /visual/ and really has no deeper meaning. With the walls lined with black and brown bound leather books, I'm sure it did look very reminiscent of a padded room. Especially when you consider that the impression is that EVERY available wall surface including the door upstairs is covered with books. Given is size and the walls completely covered with the spines of leather books, again, I'm sure the impression was very much like a padded room. So, just discriptive narrative with no hidden meaning. > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has > the feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about > Narcissa? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? > bboyminn: Again, I don't see much significants to the 'padded room' comment. Narcissa, given her worries about Draco, herself, and her husband has every right and every reason to be slightly hysterical. Narcissa is a woman of priviledge and wealth, she has never had to do anything for herself in her life beyond her wifely duties. She has been taken care of all her life, and now there is no one to take care of her, even worse, she now has the responsibility, but few of the necessary resource, to be the care giver. That's a lot of pressure on such a 'refined' 'genteel' woman. > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. ... > Elf-made wine doesn't sound too safe either. ... Do you think this > was just setting the magical mood, or was JKR waving a flag? > bboyminn: I see no significant to the 'blood red' color of the wine other that narrative description. As to house-elf wine, I would assume that that would be very fine wine. Elves take serving humans very seriously; it is at the core of their existance, and I've always imagined that anything made by a House-Elf to be of the finest quality. Now, there may be other elves and elf-like creatures in the HP wizard world that fit the reputation of being untrustworthy tricksters, but House-Elves would not be counted amoung them. > 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? > bboyminn: In some sense, I saw Snape's /revelations/ as blatant responses to fan speculation. In otherword, JKR attempt to put may fan rumors to rest and clear up any plot points. But that was just my preception. I suspect it was merely time in the story for these question to be answered and for the plot to move forward. Certain ground had to be covered within the confines of the story, and this was a way for JKR to cover that ground. As to which is truth and which is misdirection, we may never know. I personally don't think Snape knew the plan/task at all. I think he was playing the spy-game, and by saying he knew, he hope that would free up Bella and Narcissa to reveal some details. As far as gut-feeling reactions, when I read the story the first time, I'm so eager to find out what happens next, that I hardly allow myself time to react. I remember wondering what the future consequences of the UV would be, I saw that as a great mystery, and of course, I knew that wasn't the end, the UV would certainly come back into the story again. > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It ...is obviously very serious. > We've seen that magical contracts have serious consequences.... > None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, ... > bboyminn: MY thoughts on the UV are well know, at least by those who bother to read my posts. I see this whole magical Vow process to be riddled with loopholes. It's like a genie granting a wish. True they do grant wishes, but they are tricksters, and will prevert even the slightest vagueness to their advantage, and very much to the disadvantage of the wisher. When your life is at stake, you make sure the terms of the Vow are to your advantage. If you are making the Vow, you want it a vague and general as possible because that leaves you way to interpret it to your advantage. For example, if Snape had maintained the /intent/ to kill Dumbledore, could he have lived another 100 years without consequence, simply sustained by murderous intent but no actual action. That seems to fulfill the 'task'. If you are the person requesting the Vow, you make sure it is a clear and specific as possible to make sure you get what you want. Narcissa asks Snape to help look after Draco, and Snape agrees. The first two Vows are very vague and general, and are exactly what Snape expected. But then Narcissa throws in the third Vow, which is more serious. One that I'm sure Snape would like to get out of, but he is still playing the spy-game, and he can't afford to tip his hand now. So with no clear way out, he takes the third Vow, a vow which in my opinion is highly subject to interpretation, and therefore, only marginally binding. (see the example above) > 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other > Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other > than Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person > limited-omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the > Muggle Prime Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" > dispenses with a point-of-viewcharacter altogether. > In GoF, JKR very effectively shifted the point-of-view and brought the point-of-view back to Harry very smoothly. The standard 'Harry' point-of-view is good, but it does have limitations. There are times when the story calls for another point-of-view and in every case I think JKR has handled it nicely. She had to use a new character point of view in the Prime Minister's office because Harry isn't there. It was a good chapter and I greatly enjoyed it. She had to use a very limited neutral observer point-of-view in the "Spinner's End" chapter because, as others have pointed out, being inside the head of any of these characters would have given too much away. So to convey the information she had to convey, and to point the plot in the direction it had to go, she used the only effective POVs. > ...edited... > > > Potioncat who would like to thank SSSusan and Carol for their > assistance! > Questions added by Meri- Just a couple of my own questions (hope you don't mind potioncat!): - Who was watching whom? Was Snape there to keep Wormtail that ever loving screw up from getting in to too much trouble? Or was Wormtail assigned to, ahem, tail the double agent and make sure everything was kept on the up and up? I wonder if LV would have placed Wormtail there if he didn't think the rat man could handle Snape. And I am also wondering what happened to the rat man when Snape went back to school. bboyminn: To get a good sense of why DE characters do what they do, I think you need to read the 'Bartimaeus Trilogy' by Stroud. In this book, the magicians run the government and Britian is the most powerful country in the world. Just a few small problems. In this alternate wizard world, all wizard/magicians are like Death Eater in that they are all trying to be 'honored above all others'. They are posturing, backstabbing for postion and favor, constantly trying to get ahead by stepping on the backs of their colleagues. In 'Golems Eye' there is an unknown magical monster on the loose, but no one is concerned about actually catching the monster. They are all trying to come out of it looking good, and trying to make all their colleagues look bad. It's all about rank and position and favor; and the guy granting the 'favor' is playing them all against each other. So, the main point is that there is so much posturing and backstabbing that no one every gets around to doing their job. That's how I see the Death Eaters. That's why I think anyone who thought about it would see that Voldemort will create a wholly disfunctional society if he wins. Everyone will be fighting so hard for position and favor, that no one will be trying to get the job done, regardless of what the job is. Motto: If you can't lift yourself up, then push everyone else down. So, how does this apply to Wormtail and Snape? I think Voldemort simply warehoused Wormtail. In general, he is of no use, but that doesn't me he might not be useful at some point in the future. So, Snape is given the job of babysitting Peter/Wormtail. However, since everyone is psychotically eager to 'be honored above all others', Wormtail would sell Snape down the river in a second. I don't think that is why he is there. But, Voldemort is the one who grants the 'favor', and he is playing everyone against everyone to his own advantage. So, as a secondary benefit, Wormtail may find out something about Snape, and eager for favor, he would reveal it to Voldemort. But overal, I think Wormtail is simply out of the way for now. Meri: - Bella as a nickname for Bellatrix is now cannon, if it wasn't in OotP. But Narcissa being called Cissy (Sissy? I don't quite remember)? Does anyone else think that was a mite sugary? Or has the Won-won incident left a bad taste in my mouth? bboyminn: Nicknames like this are hold overs from when these characters were kids. We all had nicknames in my family, mostly assigned by my maternal grandmother. My brother was 'Stinky', I was 'Stuffin' which is a variation of Stephen (pronounced with an 'F') which is a variation of my real name Steven. Now, no one today would ever call me Stuffin, but a name variation like Cissy for Narcissa could carry over into adulthood. That's not much different than calling William, Bill or Will. Or if we take it to the next level, using names like Willie, Billie, and Stevie. Just a few thoughts, hopefully some of them coherent. Steve/bboyminn From hg_skmg at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 21:38:24 2005 From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:38:24 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142052 Lucianam: > Well, the reason I don't think Harry had the Felix Felicis is > because I think the first-years stole it and because I think the > memory he gave Dumbledore was the wrong one. Of course he could > still have got the wrong memory with FF, but putting the two > arguments together I find it easier to believe he didn't really > drink FF. hg: This is where I think I'm having trouble embracing the theory you propose. (And my position was that he wasn't under the influence of the Felix, which would allow for your memory argument, if not the first-years argument.) (snipped from 142042) Lucianam: > And you know, it's funny how people responded well to the idea of TT! > Dumbledore but not to the real memory being the foggy one. For me, > TT!Dumbledore is a spinoff of Real Memory Is The Foggy One, because > it explains how DD accepted the memory Slughorn gave Harry as okay. hg: I noted the trend in the handful of responses, and I think it's telling: It seemed most posters find more support in the text for your Time-Turner theory. The idea that the first-years stole the Felix is inventive, but I, personally, don't find it persuasive. (Perhaps there's more to come?) And that is not to say that inventive ideas should be discouraged, nor that I mean my disagreement personally. However, it seems to me, from my reading of the text, that JK indicates in several places/ways that Harry has indeed taken Felix, and it has indeed worn off long before he gets the memory from Slughorn. She has Slughorn explain how much is in the bottle, then Harry remember that amount incorrectly; she shows Harry taking a "carefully measured gulp," and then feeling the effect instantaneously; and she deliberately points to the time frame on both ends -- when Harry leaves, it's sunset, and when he returns, it's after midnight. So, to me, my reading of the Felix/Slughorn/memory scene, as I briefly stated in my previous post, is more persuasive. And when you said in your thread-starter, "I don't think it is far-fetched to suspect these pissed-off kids to come up with a plan against bullying- cheating-Prefect Weasley," what I see is that you seem to be developing a theory around this suspicion. Perhaps if there was a moment in the text when we saw a first-year dash out of the 6th year boys' dormitory, or a first-year quickly hiding something, or even if it was pointed out that one of them saw Harry "spike" Ron's pumpkin juice, I'd ride the creative wave. Was there maybe something you left out in your original post, something along these lines? No problem here with the fluidity of memories, by the way. hg. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 24 22:39:17 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:39:17 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_blond_Death_Eater_=96_A_further_appraisal_with_conclusions?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142053 SSSusan: > > Do we have canon, really, for anybody else's > > appearance changing so drastically in such a short time as to be > > unrecognizable? Goddlefrood responds: > Well yes, actually we do. Sirius himself as you mention him. If > you recall when he is first described in detail in the Shrieking > Shack in POA. Therein he is said to be hollow faced and > practically unrecognisable as the person who smiled so happily at > the Potters' wedding. It is only latter when he does smile that > Harry sees a vage resemblance. SSSusan: Fair enough. But you're talking about *Harry* with Sirius, at a point where Harry's only ever seen that one photograph from his photo album and the escapee notices. Isn't that quite different from someone whose photos presumably were plastered all over newspapers because of his Quidditch career? and who has remained in the public eye as a MoM department head? Goddlefrood: > Also there is no indication that, apart from Tonks, anyone got a > close look at the BBDE's face, as I think I mentioned in the > earlier post. There is also a good likelihood that the DEs were > hooded and the only facet of the BBDE described, other than his > sixe, is his hair colur, which could quite easily have been long > enoung to extend below such a hood. SSSusan: I am inclined to put a lot more stock in the possibility that Lupin did not get a close look than into the other possibility you suggest. I just can't quite imagine a DE wearing a hood and yet those fighting him could still ascertain that he was blonde. Or *if* its being long enough to be ascertained, this actually being evidence that the BBDE is Ludo. Is Ludo ever described as having *long* hair? We know Bill's hair is long, as it's mentioned repeatedly, but unless I'm forgetting something (a possibility, I'll grant!), Ludo is not described as having long hair. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's skeptical about Ludo as the BBDE, but who actually *did* expect to find Ludo was a Bad Guy in OotP and was disappointed when he didn't make an appearance there. From n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 22:40:22 2005 From: n_longbottom01 at yahoo.com (n_longbottom01) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 22:40:22 -0000 Subject: Wizards and Pensives moving through time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142054 I once heard of a version of the legend of King Arthur in which Merlin the Magician's life is moving backwards rather than forward in time. So when Arthur meets Merlin for the first time, Merlin already knows everything there is to know about Arthur. And when Arthur meets Merlin for the last time in his life, from Merlin's perspective he has never met the King before. The way I picture this working is that Merlin wakes up on Monday, moves forward in time like the rest of the world throughout the day, and goes to bed. When Merlin wakes up in the morning, it is Sunday, instead of Tuesday. Everyone else moved forward a day, but Merlin moved back a day. He knows what is going to happen tomorrow, because he just lived through it, but he couldn't tell you what happened yesterday, because he hasn't gotten there yet. lucianam73's post # 142002 "How important is the right sluggish memory?" got me thinking about this. She suggested that all of Dumbledore's meetings with Harry were carefully scheduled in advance, and in the one meeting that wasn't arranged ahead of time, Dumbledore seems to react in ways that indicate that he doesn't have all of the information that he had in some of their previous meetings. Lucianam suggested this indicates that Dumbledore is moving through time. My idea is that Dumbledore was caught unprepared for this meeting with Harry, and slipped up a little bit and the previous meetings were carefully scheduled so Dumbledore was prepared and there weren't time travel related slip-ups. How does a time traveling wizard prepare himself for a meeting with someone who is moving through time in the normal fashion? They use their pensive! The pensive is moving through time in the normal direction forwards. The wizard could take those memories that he needs to have move through the timeline in the normal way out of his head, and put them in his pensive. If he traveled to a certain day "out of sequence" he could use his pensive to know what he was supposed to know at the time he was supposed to know it. Back to the Merlin example: King Arthur stops by Merlin's cave unexpectedly on Monday morning to some more about the thing they were talking about yesterday. Merlin doesn't have any idea about what Arthur is talking about, because he hasn't gotten to "yesterday" yet (moving through time backwards). Merlin goes over to his pensive, pulls a few wispy thoughts out of it, and pops them back into his head. "Ah now I know what you are talking about, Arthur." Since the pensive is moving forwards through time, the thoughts in it were from the previous day, even though Merlin, moving backward through time, hadn't gotten there yet. --n_longbottom01 From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 23:01:36 2005 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:01:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0510241601r25f5a912x860ce7e44806c898@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142055 Potioncat wrote: [snip excellent summary] 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger happy, or is it just Bella? Debbie: IMO, it's just Bella who is perpetually on her guard against the Aurors, who are undoubtedly looking for her. She is, after all, an escapee from Azkaban and undoubtedly wanted as well for the murder of Sirius Black. I don't think she's just doing this because they're visiting Snape, as that would presume a closer relationship between the Auror unit of the MoM and the Order than we know exists. She must be like this whenever she goes out in public, which must be rather seldom, since she's on the lam. The very fact that she's out and about implies that it's very important to her to keep Narcissa from talking to Snape. 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long do you think Snape has been using this location? Debbie: I've given serious consideration to the idea that this is Snape's childhood home, except that when he lived there, the mill was in operation and this was a vibrant working-class community. If it's not Snape's home, perhaps it belonged to another of his Muggle relatives. 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? Debbie: Other than the same thing the Foe Glass tells us about him: that Snape's worst enemy is himself? Oddly, this description bears a very strong resemblance to my longtime (pre-OOP) perception of Snape's childhood home. In my imagination, Snape got on poorly with the neighborhood children (though until this summer I imagined them to be wizarding children) and retreated to the solitude of his family's study where he hones his contempt while poring over old wizarding texts where he taught himself the Dark Arts (thus reassuring himself that he was better than they were and therefore didn't need them). The knowledge that Snape had a muggle father, and possibly lived in a working class Muggle neighborhood, reinforces this picture in my mind -- all that's necessary is to substitute muggle children for wizarding children, and factoring in an abusive muggle father, it's even more likely that Snape thought himself to be far superior to anyone, and longed for an environment where he'd receive the respect he deserved. 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Debbie: Everything about the scene paints Narcissa as desperate for her only son. She intends to reveal a secret that the Dark Lord has forbidden her to reveal. She wants Snape's promise effectively in blood. And she seems to know her son well, if she is so desperate. Is Draco all she has? What does this say about her relationship with Lucius? 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? Debbie: I might contrast the "elf-made" wine unfavorably with Madam Rosmerta's best mead. The impression is that what Snape offered was not of the highest quality. Snape was quick to refill the glasses, too, perhaps to loosen their tongues, as we know that wine need not be magical to serve as a Recklessness Draught. 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? Debbie: It confirmed many suspicions, but there are statements that remind us that we are not to take all statements at face value. For example, Snape's claim of credit for Sirius Black (Dumbledore had previously blamed Kreacher). What came to my mind was how carefully Snape must have rehearsed his story, and how long Bellatrix has been waiting to interrogate Snape. And as I wrote yesterday on another thread, I think Snape rather enjoys playing this role and he could not resist taking Bella on, and he especially relished telling Bella that he knew Draco's task (whether or not it was true). For what it's worth, I surmised almost immediately what Draco's task was and read the rest of the book in anticipation of the events on the tower. 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? Debbie: I contrast the seriousness of the making of the UV in this chapter with Ron's comment later on -- that the Twins (who would then have been about seven) tried to trap Ron into such a thing. These things are really dangerous! Considering the deadly effect of failing to keep the vow, I would imagine that they are rare indeed and can't understand who would tell a small child *who is not supposed to do magic at all* of their existence. On second thought, maybe *that*'s why purebloods were at risk of dying out! 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person limited- omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the Muggle Prime Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" dispenses with a point- of-view character altogether. Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic or third-person objective point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's as if both the narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene, much like Harry on the tower. How does this change in the point of view affect our reading of this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose this point of view rather than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or Bellatrix's mind? How does having a chapter written from a point of view other than Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series itself? Should JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to maintain a Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? 10. 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? Debbie: I'm answering questions 9 & 10 together. IMO, the most effective opening chapter in the series to date is the beginning of GoF, which begins, like Spinners End, with a third person objective POV and, like a movie camera, eventually focuses our attention on what will become the climax of the book. Spinners end does something the same thing, beginning with a movie camera view of the village, and then focusing in on Narcissa and Bella and following them into the house, where we see the events unfold. Our attention is drawn to what will lead to the climax of the book. (GoF is a little different, because parts are told, IIRC, from Frank Bryce's POV, but the effect is the same.) Opening a story from a limiting third party POV can be very effective, I think. The problem I see with the effectiveness of the HBP opening, however, is that Spinners End was preceded by the relatively meaningless chapter one which, while interesting in approach, was not important to the story. There is nothing in that chapter we could not have learned from reading along with the newspapers at the beginning of ch. 3, and it could have been consigned to the GARBAGE SCOW.* Moreover, when we arrive at chapter 3 there is yet another beginning as the narrative draws our attention first to all the newspapers before finally Harry's POV is introduced. (In GoF, in contrast, Harry's POV began at the very beginning of chapter 2, which made for better contrast and a quicker jump into the main story. Come to think of it, though, I think I once lobbed that chapter into the GARBAGE SCOW, too.) Sorry for the digression, but what I liked least about the POV of Spinners End is all of the other POV shifts at the beginning of the book. This one worked for me. The others, less so. Debbie posting before this gets any longer * GARBAGE SCOW - Gibberish, Altogether Redundant Blather And Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains Welcome [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 24 23:12:50 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:12:50 -0000 Subject: Is Dumbledore fully human? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142056 Luckdragon: This might be way out there, but I'm working on a theory about why Dumbledore's death may be different from the deaths of Sirius and Cedric; and why Dumbledore may possibly be resurrected or still live on in some form to help Harry. In GOF chapter twenty "The First Task" Moody tells Harry "Madame maxime and Karkaroff will tell their champions everything they can to win" Moody says, "They want to beat Dumbledore. They'd like to prove he's only human." Most probably this is just a figure of speech, but Jo has a way of throwing in the odd unobtrusive line that later becomes quite important. This statement, combined with all of Dumbledore's amazing abilities, age, aptitude for languages, championing of all races, mysteriousness, seemingly being all knowing, ability to become invisible without a cloak, being the only one who LV fears, along with the questionable way he died and the phoenix form arising from his tomb can also indicate that Dumbledore may have been part human combined with another intelligent, powerful life form. Of course these attributes can also be due to hard work and diligence, but if that is the case why are there not more wizards like DD? Does anyone else think there may be more to DD than has been revealed so far? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 23:39:47 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:39:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142057 > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger happy, or is it just Bella? First, Bellatrix is a diehard DE for whom the Cruciatus Curse is a form of entertainment, so it's no surprise that she would cast an AK (even at a fox) as easily as Harry would cast a Stunning Spell. It's clear that she's a deranged fanatic from the first moment we see her (in the Pensieve in GoF). Possibly, casting the Unforgiveable Curses affects the brain as well as the soul (as with the Crouches, father and son). Add to that some twelve years in Azkaban, being constantly on the alert for Aurors as the only DE who escaped from both Azkaban and the MoM, and being on the outs with LV (even though he did save her from the Aurors at the MoM), and you have one fruitcake of a woman, the female DE equivalent of Alastor Moody, the notoriously paranoid ex-Auror. I don't think she suspects that Snape's home is being watched (he hasn't yet committed any known crimes except being a DE, a charge that was dropped), but she herself can't be seen in public any more than Peter Pettigrew can now that his cover has been blown. She's a wanted fugitive already sentenced to life in Azkaban. Contrast Lucius Malfoy before his arrest--haughty and contemptuous of everyone, jingling the gold in his pockets--cautiously hiding or selling poisons and other Dark artifacts because he knows that his house will be searched, but certainly not AKing anyone and anything he encounters in case that person or animal is an Auror. (As someone mentioned, Bella's encounter with "the Animagus Black"--what a way to speak of her own cousin!--may have made her a bit wary of animals in case they're unregistered Animagi.) What surprises me is not that she's jumpy (she has good reason to be) but that she cared enough to follow "Cissy" and attempt to keep her away from Snape. (Too bad for all concerned that she didn't succeed.) > > > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long do you think Snape has been using this location? Carol: As others have pointed out, young Snape certainly wouldn't have invited his pureblood Slytherin friends (and I think that Narcissa was one of them, unmentioned by Sirius Black because she didn't become a Death Eater) to visit Spinner's End if it was indeed his childhood home. (I'm not at all convinced that it was because I don't think the man in the childhood memory was Snape's father--Harry would surely have recognized him as a Muggle by his clothing. I think it was Grandpa Prince.) Possibly Snape inherited the house on his father's death or bought the place as an adult. My guess is that this is where he has spent his summers since first being hired at Hogwarts, that previous guests have included Lucius Malfoy and possibly Narcissa (but not often enough that she recalls the exact location), and possibly Dumbledore. Beyond that, I'm as mystified as anyone else. > > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? Carol: I hadn't noticed the "dark, padded cell" image till you brought it up. Certainly it sounds confining, almost as if he's a prisoner in his own home (possibly foreshadowing the loss of freedom he'll experience in Book 7?). The one thing that strikes me is that he's owned it long enough to convert it from a Muggle house with electricity (which it must have had if his Muggle father owned it in the early 60s) to a wizarding house lit by a candle-filled lamp hanging from the ceiling and containing at least two hidden passageways that probably would not have been there when it was inhabited by Muggles. (I think Snape installed them himself.) The leather-bound books that line the walls are certainly Snape's own, furthering the image of him as a loner and an intellectual who cares more for ideas (including Dark Arts in the abstract) than for material goods or socializing. And yet he has elf-made wine available for guests, and Wormtail has been eavesdropping on somebody in this very house, so he isn't always alone with the rat. And Wormtail clearly lives there even when Snape is at Hogwarts: He has his own room. Altogether, the house raises more questions than it answers. At least it isn't full of Dark artifacts or decorated with house-elf heads. > > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Carol: I don't think that the padded cell image relates to Narcissa (the room is *Snape's* refuge/prison), but certainly she seems pale and waiflike, in need of rescuing (like a drowning person, but "drowned" suggests that she seems already dead), when Snape sees her. Almost certainly he's never seen her like this before, and, as a man, he responds instinctively by wanting to help her. And though I believe that her tears are real, released by the simultaneous hopes and fears that his presence arouses in her, her desperation takes quite another form with her sister. When Narcissa burns Bellatrix's hand with an unnamed hex, we see that she quite literally will do anything to save Draco--including, IMO, casting an AK herself if she could get into Hogwarts to kill Dumbledore, or killing Snape if he fails to help her. Fortunately for her, Snape doesn't see this fiery, determined side. He sees instead a fearful, beautiful, seemingly helpless woman, the mother of his favorite student and the wife of his friend--but also a usually haughty pureblood kneeling at the feet of the Half-Blood Prince, begging for his help and protection for her son. Every instinct but one, self-protection, clamors to help her. If she had looked as she looks in "Draco's Detour," she would not have succeeded in gaining the help she sought. And I don't think she came to Snape planning to trap him into a UV. that could not have happened if Bella hadn't followed her. A UV requires the presence of a third person, and neither Snape nor Narcissa would have trusted Wormtail with the job. In my view, neither Narcissa nor Bellatrix is playing a role here (unlike Snape, whom we see for the first time as he appears to the Death Eaters). Bellatrix speaks her opinions and feelings (with the exception of her doubts about LV) quite openly in this chapter. She's still the loyal fanatic willing to sacrifice her nephew (and her imaginary sons) to the Dark Lord's cause, suspicious of Snape but unable to find holes in his carefully crafted ("spun") story. The only surprise is that she actually seems to care for Narcissa (the golden-haired baby of the family), whom she still calls by the childhood nickname of "Cissy" (Narcissa/"Sissy"=little sister), as Narcissa (and Voldie) call Bellatrix "Bella." (Was Andromeda "Andy" till she married a Muggleborn and got burned off the genealogical charts?) So Bellatrix when she's not in full DE mode is a bit saner than I expected, a bit more affectionate toward her sister, but not above criticizing Lucius and still completely ESE! despite one mildly redeeming, or at least humanizing, quality. Narcissa, in contrast, is almost out of control, alternately weeping and fiercely determined to to protect her only son. She defends her husband and is devoted to her son, putting them both ahead of her sister and even daring to defy the Dark Lord by going to Snape for Draco's sake. This is not the Narcissa we saw at the QWC sneering at the Muggleborns and the blood traitors, or the Narcissa who delivered Kreacher's information to Voldemort either directly or via Lucius. Nor is this the Narcissa who evidently abused Dobby just as much as Lucius did (Dobby describes the Malfoys in general, apparently including even then-twelve-year-old Draco, as "bad Dark wizards"). And it's not the Narcissa we see again in "Draco's Detour," sharing and encouraging her son's prejudice against "Mudbloods." Apparently Snape's UV has by that time restored her to her normal self and she's no longer concerned for Draco's safety. Severus will prevent Draco from failure or punishment and bear the brunt of the consequences when the deed is done. But we've seen this side of Narcissa before, sending sweets to Draco and persuading Lucius not to send him to Durmstrang. Her obsessive love seems more like indulgence, more like Petunia's infatuation for Dudley (or Mrs. Crouch's for Barty Jr.) than Molly's scolding devotion to her children. Draco is evidently Narcissa's whole life, and she reacts with Smotherlove. And while we can feel compassion for her in this chapter, it's clear (to me) that Draco is who he is and what he is in part because of her. (Maternal devotion to an only son didn't save Barty Jr. from becoming a DE either.) On a side note, I think that Narcissa's parents named their last child after a flower, breaking with the family tradition of using stars or constellations, because with her blue eyes and golden hair, she didn't look like a Black. But we all know what happened to Narcissus . . . . > > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? Carol: I did think of "Sir Patrick Spens" but not of elves and fairies. The blood symbolism seemed ominous (and maybe too obvious), but the toast to the Dark Lord I took as Snape posing as loyal DE primarily for Bella's benefit, perhaps silently drinking to the Dark Lord's fall. I wondered, too, how Snape could trust Wormtail not to poison the "blood-red wine" and decided that he kept his potions under strong locking spells (and perhaps even hid Wormtail's wand so he wouldn't have access to it). Wormtail, I suppose, could choke Snape in the dark with that silver hand (carefully noted again by JKR), but I think he's afraid of retaliation by LV, who still has uses for Snape even though he doesn't fully trust him. And as we've seen, Wormtail prefers enduring Snape's snarkiness and acting as his servant to returning to Voldemort, who apparently has transformed him into a hunchback through Crucios and other forms of cruelty. So IMO the wine is just wine, used to calm Narcissa and possibly to help Snape catch one or the other sister off her guard. I don't think that Snape himself is affected by it. He seems fully in control until that third provision of the UV, and there are better explanations for that unexpected development than elf-made wine. (Wonder if the wine was a gift from LV, designed to catch Snape off his guard by taking his status as "favorite" for granted? Just a thought.) > > 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? The ones that stood out on a first reading and retain their impact (for me) on repeated rereadings are the immense chimney that "reared up, shadowy and ominous" (HBP Am. ed. 19) and the tongue of flame that "bound itself thickly about their clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake" (37). The chimney reminds me of the standing stones in FOTR ("Fog on the Barrow Downs") that remind Frodo of warning fingers, and the binding imagery, not only ropes but *snakes* of fire, is scarier than any direct confrontation between the characters, whether it's the graveyard scene in GoF or the tower scene in HBP. My fear when I first read it was not for Dumbledore (although I think I'd figured out what the "deed" was) but that Snape would fall irrevocably into evil. (I thought that fear had come true on a first reading of the tower scene, but that's because I was hurrying through and missing important details.) I also noticed Bella's use of "slithering out of action," which had the opposite effect, giving me hope that Snape had "slithered" out of killing anyone or even using any kind of Unforgiveable Curse up to that point. (That's still how I read the words.) The implied metaphor emphasizes his Slytherin cleverness with a very JKRlike pun (Slytherin/slitherin), reminding me of the Snape/snake connection (snake as emblem of Slytherin House)--Severus acting in the best Phinneas Nigellus tradition of enlightened self-protection but as a means of escaping the dirty work assigned to other DEs. Very clever, very Snapelike. But not even Snape could slither out of the fiery ropes that bound him at the end of the chapter. Excellent writing, but not at all what I wanted to happen. > > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? Carol: I don't think that UVs are everyday matters in the WW. Binding contracts, yes--but to enter into a vow that will kill you if you don't keep it or ask someone else to do so? Surely that's no ordinary business deal. The very fact that Narcissa would propose a UV to her friend and would-be rescuer is a mark of her desperation (and perhaps an indication that, helpless and beautiful and fiercely maternal or not, she's not a good person). I very much doubt that DD, for example, would ever propose an Unbreakable Vow, though he does demand Harry's promise that he will obey any command whether he wants to or not. But he's not going to force Harry to obey him by putting his life at stake. For the same reason, I don't think DD would ask Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow (not to mention that it requires a third party as Bonder, which would violate Snape's privacy). So, no. This is not business as usual. This is a life-or-death proposition. And even Snape, who risks his life every time he speaks to LV or any loyal DE, and who must be very careful even in his dealings with his own students, especially Harry, hesitates before taking it. He knows that the tightrope he walks every day has just turned into a knifeblade. One slip and he's a dead man. But if he doesn't take it, he's a dead man as well. Narcissa is one desperate woman, and Bellatrix would be happy to have a reason to AK Snape. > Carol, thanking any brave soul whose made it to the end of this post, even if they disagree with every word of it From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 25 00:34:25 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:34:25 -0000 Subject: Edition discrepancy in "After the Burial" (Re: The first-years conspiracy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142058 > hg: > However, it seems to me, from my reading of the text, that JK > indicates in several places/ways that Harry has indeed taken > Felix, and it has indeed worn off long before he gets the memory > from Slughorn. She has Slughorn explain how much is in the > bottle, then Harry remember that amount incorrectly; Jen: Uh-oh, problem with editions here. I happen to have both the Scholastic and Bloomsbury texts (much thanks to my sis in New Zealand) and the Scholastic edition has Harry saying, "I don't reckon I'll need all of it, not twenty-four hours' worth, it can't take all night..." (chap. 22, p. 476) Here's the Bloomsbury edition: "I don't reckon I'll need all of it, not twelve hours' worth, it can't take all night..." (chap. 22, p. 445) If the Bloomsbury is the correct one, Harry was most likely *was* then under the effects of Felix while getting the memory. I remember reading a correction page put out by Scholastic, seems like Arthur Levine was answering some questions about possible errors, but I can't locate it now. Anyone remember this? Jen From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 25 00:54:25 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:54:25 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142059 Lucianam: > I suspect he [DD] uses that watch of him to Time Travel (the one we > see in the first chapter or PS/SS). Now that Ron's got a similar one > (from Dumbledore himself??) I suspect the kids will Time Travel > again in Book 7. > > > > Valky: > > I'll put Galleons on it, Lucianam. I would even have a crack at > > the timeframe they will return to in case you're interested. The > > battle at the D.O.M. > > > > Lucianam > D.O.M.? Really? Why, would you like to elaborate on that? Valky: There are a few reasons. The first of them is that there is a wide open question mark hanging over Sirius' death. The mysterious jet of light that hit Sirius squarely on the chest needs explanation. The reason that such an agile, excellent dueller was caught off guard by a stray spell *directly in his chest* also needs to be explained. As an invisible prescence in the Veil room, Harry can gain the perspective he needs to know where the spell came from and how it caught Sirius by surprise. It will be important to Harry that he knows who shot the jet of light, he needs to know exactly how Sirius died, I think (and so do I ). Jen: Why the DOM? Not that I don't think it's possible but what would they be looking for? I'm not sure if you're thinking about Sirius' death or the battle between LV and DD (or something else entirely). Valky: The battle scenes in the D.O.M. are scattered with notes of voices and footsteps from ambiguous sources. When Luna relates the battle in the room of planets she tells that she accidentally broke Ginny's ankle on what appears to be her first spell, and Ron was hit with something that made him 'go all funny'. Somehow, all three survived and escaped four DE's attacking them but Luna was the only one capable of fighting, this is a suspicious set of circumstances, lending to a theory that they may have had help from an undisclosed source. Later in the brain room, Ginny is hit in the face with a spell and is knocked unconscious, as Harry is running out after Bellatrix Ginny looks up, now conscious and says "Harry - what -?". Ginny does seem to have recovered too quickly from the curse cast at her face, Luna, who was knocked out before her is still unconscious on the floor, it is possible Ginny has been revived by someone, though this may have been Dumbledore, there is some reason to believe that Ginny's surprised reaction to Harry is indicative of something more specific to do with Harry. I am guessing that the trio trace the locket to Sirius and it leads to them arriving at the D.O.M on that night. The prescence of the trio in the D.O.M working behind the scenes to protect the D.A. would explain some gaps in the account of the battle. Jen: No, no, Godric's Hollow the night of the murders, of course!! Valky: I'd sure like to see it, but I do wonder if they can travel that far back. > Lucianam: > And you know, it's funny how people responded well to the idea of > TT!Dumbledore but not to the real memory being the foggy one. For > me, TT!Dumbledore is a spinoff of Real Memory Is The Foggy One, > because it explains how DD accepted the memory Slughorn gave Harry > as okay. Valky: I do understand your surprise Lucianam. To me, Timeturning is an end unto its own in theory as it raises huge complications all by itself. Although I say I am content with the memory Harry retrieved being the real one, I do agree with you that it seems relatively unfounded for Slughorn to hide his praise of Young Tom Riddle with the same determination as he did the information about Horcruxes. It could be explained as purely relevant to Slughorns character, he was possibly very ashamed of promising Tom help to rise through the Ministry, there may be nothing more to it than that, but I concede your point that it is suspicious to some degree. Valky From hitchyker at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 23:33:37 2005 From: hitchyker at gmail.com (Collin M) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:33:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: *snip summary* > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? Others have pointed out already that Bellatrix has some extra reasons to worry, and I agree. On the other hand, I really get the sense that DEs are the sort of people who will use magic, especially the unforgivable curses, whenever it is convenient to them, sort of as an act of bravado. They like the appearance of power after all. But in this case, it may be more caution than hutzpah since the only one she has to show off for is her sister. > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? I didn't get the impression that they were all familiar with it. Bellatrix was the only one that commented on it, but I think Narcissa was too distraught with her own thoughts to think much of it and it seemed Pettigrew had been there awhile so I don't think either would comment on it. I'm not sure how long Snape's been using the location, but I think it's a detail that helps set him apart from the other DEs--that he seems to live in run-down neighborhood of poor muggles--and thereby carries the suspsense surrounding his true allegiance. If this was Snape's childhood house, I don't imagine him bringing his cohorts around to it out of either shame or at least distaste for his home life. Bellatrix's reaction to it, I think, demonstrates why. > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the > feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? > How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? I think she's desperate and this is the image JKR is trying to create for her with the "drowned person" image. It shows the strength of her feeling for his son. I remember a comment once that villains who love someone or something are far more interesting (It was Joss Whedon talking about the relationship between the Mayor and Faithe and Spike and Drusilla, for any Buffy fans out there ;) ), and I think that this really comes through here. Her concern about Draco outweighs everything, even her allegiance to LV, and I find her to be a much more appealling and well-rounded character because of this. > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm > not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! > Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, > nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? I like the idea of this! But I think the portrayal of elves in the sort of stories where elf-made wine is treacherous is much different from the house elves of the potterverse. JKR's elves are sort of simple, toiling creatures. The sort of elves that bewitch wine are often the kind that steal away children and seduce men and women and trick mortals into losing their loves or fortunes or lives--not the sort of behavior I envision the house elves participating in! Imagine Dobby trying to seduce someone? :) But the image of 'bloodred wine' is a potent one and I think it helps enhance the mood of the chapter. > 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? What really strikes me about the chapter is that it's the most intimate look into relationships within the DEs that we've seen yet, I think. Up until now, most DEs have been sort of single-mindedly evil, maniacal laughter, "Fools! Curse you!" types. The emotions being displayed here between everyone (except Pettigrew who continues to be spineless and simpering) are remarkably sensitive ones for characters who are capable of such evil: Bellatrix's concern for her sister, Narcissa's love for her son and her trust of Snape, and even I think some feelings (rekindling of feelings?) of affection or camaradarie on Snape's part for Narcissa. Clearly there's plenty of animosity as well, but it's all a very complex interaction in a group of mostly or wholly villains. JKRs constant development of all her characters is, I think, one of the qualities that makes it so enduring. > 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other > Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than > Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person limited- > omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the Muggle Prime > Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" dispenses with a point- > of-view > character altogether. Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if > we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic > or third-person objective > point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a > minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's > as if both the > narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene, > much like Harry on the tower. How does this change in the point of > view affect our reading of this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose > this point of view rather than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or > Bellatrix's mind? How does having a chapter written from a point of > view other than Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series > itself? Should JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to > maintain a Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? > Related link about Point of View: > http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/fiction/elements.asp?e=4 Other have pointed out that the point of view JKR chooses is used to limit the reader's access to information, and I agree completely. I think it's also important to note that whenever we do see through the eyes of an actual non-Harry character, it is either someone inconsequential (Frank the gardener in GoF and the PM in the previous chapter) or LV/snakes and we are unable to hear his thoughts, simply see what he sees through Harry's dreams. The GoF ch.1 one is weird because we see it from Frank's POV but then learn that Harry was dreaming. I don't think he literally dreamed it from Frank's POV though, because he never does this in any other dream connected to LV, so that chapter still counts I think. But I think that apart from providing information, the non-Harry POV chapters add some suspense because we are left at the end to wonder what will come of what we see. HBP ch.1 introduces Scrimgeour and sets up some expectations for him that influence our perception of him later. GoF ch.1 not only sets up some new suspense regarding LV, it initiates the LV-connected dreams that become so consequential in OOP, and Spinner's End, with its frustrating combination of revelation (Draco's task, LV's anger, The charges by DEs against Snape) and denial of information (Snape's allegiance, the nature of Draco's task) sets up a good deal of suspense for the novel. Collin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 23:42:34 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:42:34 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_blond_Death_Eater_=96_A_further_appraisal_with_conclusions?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142061 > SSSusan: > Isn't that quite different > from someone whose photos presumably were plastered all over > newspapers because of his Quidditch career? > Goddlefrood Harry is unfamiliar with the wizarding world when we first meeting, and this is a prevailing theme throughout the books, viz Harry's discovery of the WW's workings. Sirius does change quite significantly, even to someone he is familiar to in less than two years, why then could Bagman not change from his slovenly, gone to seed self to a more athletic version, particularly if he has been on the run? > SSSusan: > I just can't quite imagine a DE wearing a hood and yet > those fighting him could still ascertain that he was blonde. Goddlefrood I only mentioned this as a possibility and in fact Bagman's hair is only once described and said to be short (somewhere in GOF or see #141482 for exact reference). I threw this out because people's hair does grow. Two years would be long enoungh to produce good flowing locks of it. Goddlefrood who hopes book 7 will prove him right From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Oct 25 01:15:39 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:15:39 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142062 > Valky earlier: > When Luna relates the battle in the > room of planets she tells that she accidentally broke Ginny's ankle > on what appears to be her first spell, and Ron was hit with > something that made him 'go all funny'. Somehow, all three survived > and escaped four DE's attacking them but Luna was the only one > capable of fighting, this is a suspicious set of circumstances Valky again: Sorry, I just have to add something that I forgot in evidence of Harry being present in the room of planets. Ron in his 'funny' state cracks a joke at Harry about having seen "Uranus up close." Ron adds "get it Harry? Uranus?" Since this is a grown-up site I am sure noone will mind me mentioning the nature of this joke to make the point. Ron is saying to Harry that he saw Ur-anus - and he is certain Harry gets it. The implication here, at second glance, is *not* general (though we can be forgiven for assuming that it is at first glance, can't we ) Ron is specifically implying that he *saw Harry* in the room of planets. Just to add coal to that fire. Valky From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 25 01:23:39 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:23:39 EDT Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End Message-ID: <1f6.15289b56.308ee31b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142063 I know I'm repeating others before me, but these are really inventive questions, Potioncat (and Carol, and SSSusan). 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long do you think Snape has been using this location? Julie: It may not relevant enough to the story for JKR to ever confirm or deny, but I think this location is Snape's childhood home. We know Snape doesn't come from money, and this seems like the kind of mean surroundings that would fit the Pensieve scenes where young Severus was cowering and teenage Severus was zapping flies with his wand. It would be a poetic fit anyway, even if there's no proof! As for Bella not knowing about it, I get the impression Snape and Bella were never close, for all that they ran around in the same gang. There doesn't seem to be any love lost between them at all, and I don't get the impression it's a recent development. Add to the fact that she was in Azkaban, it's not surprising she doesn't know about Spinner's End, or that Snape wouldn't volunteer the information to her. 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? Julie: I didn't really read any significance into the padded cell reference, other than it perhaps being Snape's way of protecting himself from the outside world. Snape likes small, dark places, like his dungeon office. Would his living quarters be any different? And Snape has never been about appearances, so he's not likely to care about the threadbare state of his surroundings, inside the house or out, any more than he cares about his grooming. As long as he has his small space and his books, he's content. (As I would be, though I prefer my surroundings lit and cozy, rather than dark and cell-like!) I do think this is Snape's home away from Hogwarts, which means he wouldn't be in residence except during school breaks and in the summer, assuming he's not busy playing double-agent between Dumbledore and Voldemort. To me, all those books lining the walls seem to confirm it. And the neglected state doesn't mean much, because, again, Snape doesn't much care about keeping up appearances. 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Julie: It pretty much just told me Narcissa is desperate. She'll do anything to protect her son, and sacrifice anyone, including Snape, in the process. (I'm not a proponent of ACIDPOPS!) 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? Julie: I think it was just setting the magical mood, and the foreboding sense that something not good is coming. 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? Julie: My first thought as I read the chapter was that Spinner's End was the perfect location for Snape. As the conversation between Snape and the Black sisters commenced, I, like others, was never once shaken by Snape's declarations of loyalty to Voldemort, or his explanations of how his actions throughout the previous five books supposedly support that conclusion. No matter *what* Snape is-- DDM, ESE, or OFH--he's not going to do anything BUT declare his loyalty to Voldemort in the presence of Bella and Narcissa. So I continued from this chapter with pretty much the same opinion about Snape, that he is on the side of Good, while being quite unpleasant in personality. 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? Julie: I think Snape had a good idea what Narcissa wanted from him. I don't think Voldemort told him, because I don't think Voldemort tells anyone more than he absolutely has to. But Snape's no idiot, and I imagine rumors spread throughout the DE world as quickly as they do throughout the general WW. So he wasn't surprised by the vow, as he expected Narcissa to ask for his help. He planned to protect Draco, he just didn't plan on that third part of the Vow (thus the hand twitching). And since magical contracts seem impossible to break in the WW without serious consequences ensuing, it's no wonder Snape hesitated! (That may not always be the case in all fantasy tales, but we haven't seen an exception in the WW.) 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person limited- omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the Muggle Prime Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" dispenses with a point- of-view character altogether. Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic or third-person objective point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's as if both the narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene, much like Harry on the tower. How does this change in the point of view affect our reading of this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose this point of view rather than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or Bellatrix's mind? How does having a chapter written from a point of view other than Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series itself? Should JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to maintain a Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? Julie: Clearly JKR wasn't about to let us see this scene from Snape's POV! But even giving us Bella or Narcissa's POV would probably give too much away. There have been a handful of POV's besides Harry's, but they've all been minor or one-time characters (Vernon Dursley, Frank Bryce, the Prime Minister). I'd love something from a major/ pivotal character's POV (Snape, Hermoine, Lupin, etc, etc) but I don't think we'll ever get it. JKR didn't write the story that way. I definitely don't think JKR should have deleted Chapters 1 or 2, or other non-Harry-centric chapters in earlier books. It's gives us the rare opportunity to know something Harry doesn't, and to see objectively rather than through the lens of Harry's POV. While I love Harry (or I wouldn't be reading the books) I do enjoy those brief diversions. I'm hoping there'll be one or two chapters told from outside of Harry's POV in Book 7. Julie (skipping question #10 as I have no answer right now) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Oct 25 01:53:09 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:53:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142064 potioncat: > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? Ceridwen: I doubt if Bellatrix is the only DE still walking free who isn't a bit paranoid about Aurors. It's only been a couple of weeks since the disaster at the MoM, after all. Bella may be more paranoid than most of the DEs, as she's an escapee from Azkaban, and was known to have been at the Ministry when so many other DEs were caught. Living with Dementors for years, plus the recent events, have made her the 'shoot first and ask questions later' type. Hey, it keeps you alive. > > 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights > that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's > edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in > the late 90's? Ceridwen: Can't say for any RW sociologists. I've tried to do a search about just that, run-down textile mill towns in Britain, and came up with... nothing helpful. I think the area is like many others in cities and industrial towns all around the world. The primary industry has either upgraded and moved out to the 'burbs, or has gone under. The homes which are left are degrading, perhaps lived in by squatters or transients, or just plain empty. Alternatively, it could now be the 'bad part of town' where no one ventures out after dark. It's obviously not deserted, at least during the day, vacation time or weekends, evidence of the food wrappers. And, the lights are still on. So, someone must live there besides Snape. But, the people have changed from the original inhabitants. IMO. > > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? Ceridwen: Bellatrix is still the same twenty-something snob who was sentenced to Azkaban. A 'dunghill' is in the eye of the beholder. She is, or was, privileged, surrounded by wealth, and probably didn't bother to visit a younger classmate who had a (ewww!) Muggle parent, and was just some geeky kid anyway. She probably spent her holidays skiing and swimming in the Mediterranean, and later on, being romanced by her later husband and possibly other candidates for her affection. Narcissa may have visited as a student, but then you'd expect her to have at least started to describe it to her older sister. As adults, Snape wouldn't be as touchy about his surroundings, if these are the same ones he grew up in, and his friendship and organizational interests with Lucius would at least bring Lucius by occasionally. I never did buy the Stately Snape Manor complete with batcave underneath. Snape just isn't the Lord of the Manor type. He actually works for a living. And, he may have a better position than his upbringing, so no, I didn't think this was a stretch. > > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or > the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is > his usual home away from Hogwarts? Ceridwen: I'm not convinced this was his childhood home, or even his usual place of residence. It could be, or it could not be. As with Slughorn, he could just tote his books with him as he goes to wherever he's ordered. As an unmarried, childless agent of both LV and DD, he would be the logical one to send on 'road trips'. I don't know either way, though, and there's really nothing to indicate one VP to another on this. All the atmosphere could be implying is, Snape really doesn't care what his surroundings look like, as long as he has his books and somewhat serviceable furnishings. > > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the > feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? > How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Ceridwen: That she's desperate, drowning in a sea of sorrow, half-mad with worry and despair, which she later proves. > > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm > not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! > Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, > nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? Ceridwen: Just atmosphere. The whole chapter comes off as something one might like to read around Hallowe'en. > > 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? Ceridwen: Blood-red wine; so many dark, bound books that the place looks like a padded cell; candles in a fixture suspended from the ceiling, the dark night; the lateness of the hour; the Dementor fog; the two women, one dark, the other light; the 'drowned' desperate woman, a wraithlike figure; the flowing cloak as she ran; the play of light and deep shadow; the covert glance out the window; the lurking hunch- backed assistant; foreign (elvin) wine; deserted streets, blank windows; two people kneeling in a travesty of Christian ritual, being bound by fiery serpentine bonds as a half-crazed madwoman looks on wide-eyed... Plays like a Saturday horror matinee. Add the possibility of deception, and the scene is well set. I loved it. And, it set in my mind that the story would be a bit darker. > > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and > is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have > serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in > OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this > just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow > compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? Ceridwen: I see the WW as being in some ways, very old-fashioned. A promise was often good enough, but for the really heavy things, people made vows. Anything from a pinkie-swear, to spitting on one's palm before shaking hands, to solemnly swearing on some article of importance. I do think such vows would be a bit different in the WW than in a fairy tale, where 'Muggles', ordinary people, are caught in deals with magical beings. Somebody mentioned Rumplestiltskin, then there's Rapunzel and the angry witch who's been robbed; and the fairies in Sleeping Beauty, including the one evil witch who has been left out. And, more that I'm not remembering, it's been a while! Snape can probably take a magical vow better than a non-magical person can. Still, they're laced with trickery and double meanings. > > 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other > Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than > Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person limited- > omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the Muggle Prime > Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" dispenses with a point- > of-view > character altogether. Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if > we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic > or third-person objective > point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a > minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's > as if both the > narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene, > much like Harry on the tower. How does this change in the point of > view affect our reading of this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose > this point of view rather than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or > Bellatrix's mind? How does having a chapter written from a point of > view other than Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series > itself? Should JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to > maintain a Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? > Related link about Point of View: > http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/fiction/elements.asp?e=4 Ceridwen: How many feet of parchment do you want on this? And, can I use an automated dictation pen? ;) The third person objective allows for an objective look at a lot of things. Snape's hair, for one thing. 'Curtain of hair' rather than 'greasy strands'. It divorces us from a character's biases. It also allows for a different sort of description. When we're in one character's POV, we only see what they see. The omniscient VP allows for something else - we know it's a fox, and how it reacts before Bella sees it, for instance. It also allows for a build-up of atmospheric descriptions like the tower of the old mill, which Narcissa and Bellatrix may or may not have cared to notice. We're able to step back and just observe by ourselves and allow ourselves to become the last, silent, member of the scene. I doubt if all the dark adjectives would have been used in a character's POV as effectively - 'it seemed to Bella that the towering chimney stack loomed like an admonishing finger...' instead of the more atmospheric '...over which the towering mill chimney seemed to hover like an admonitory finger'. Instead of craning our necks up with Bella, we see it in a more panoramic sweep. (Though, it would have to be lighted, wouldn't it? It's dark.) Anyway, Bella probably would have continued with the 'dungheap' analogies, the blackened tower perhaps, or the awfulness of it all. We see events as they happen, without being let into the secret itself, or the motivations of any of the participants. We are freed to feel as stunned as Bella at the UV, or as moved as Snape is, or ought to be, at Narcissa's anguish. We wonder what's going on, and we formulate our own interpretations based on what we know, rather than what someone else guides us into thinking. I liked both The Other Minister and Spinner's End. It was nice to get out into the wider world, and see the interaction between the MoM and the PM, and to see Snape as spy, operating as a DE with fellow DE Bella and DE wife (do they have a women's auxillary?), Narcissa. It was also interesting to note the presence of Pettigrew, who disappears afterwards - why? What is he up to? And, where will it lead in book 7? I think these chapters enhance what we learn in chapters 3 and 4, and give us a grounding in the UV, the relationship between the Muggle and Wizarding worlds, as well as the extent of LV's machinations in the Muggle world as viewed by a person of some responsibility in that world. Poor PM! Now he knows, but he can't tell a soul without being carted off to a *real* padded room! And, we now know VWII is heating up, it won't be long before the final confrontation. > > 10. 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? Ceridwen: They're all setting the scene for events in the rest of the book. I'd include chapter four as another visitation chapter, too. At the end of these four chapters, we know the major players, their surroundings, their motivations, and we're ready for the story to begin. Ceridwen. From kjones at telus.net Tue Oct 25 01:55:12 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:55:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435D9080.70003@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 142065 > Carol: (I'm not at all convinced that it was because I don't think the > man in the childhood memory was Snape's father--Harry would surely > have recognized him as a Muggle by his clothing. I think it was > Grandpa Prince.) Possibly Snape inherited the house on his father's > death or bought the place as an adult. My guess is that this is where > he has spent his summers since first being hired at Hogwarts, that > previous guests have included Lucius Malfoy and possibly Narcissa (but > not often enough that she recalls the exact location), and possibly > Dumbledore. Beyond that, I'm as mystified as anyone else. > > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the > house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his > usual home away from Hogwarts? KJ writes: There are a couple of things that bother me about Spinner's End being Snape's regular residence. The most intriguing thing, I think, is that the bottle of elf-made wine was described as dusty. When Dumbledore conjured up a bottle of mead at Dursley's, it was also described as dusty. DD produced the mead in a place which was not his residence. The similarity of events and the close timing are curious. The residence is also described as having "an air of neglect, as though it were not usually inhabited". When we meet Slughorn, we see how quickly a wizard can give a residence a certain appearance. Another thing that bothers me is that Snape is apparently a friend of Malfoy. He must be known in certain circles. His speech is elegant and reads much like Malfoy's manner of speech. This, among other things, is what gave readers the belief that Snape was a pureblood. I think that this house is as much a scene as Slughorn's. Now that he is back with the DE's he has to have a private place for them to see which he has no regrets leaving when the time comes. All things considered, I don't know why there is a general idea that Snape is poverty-stricken. He may have been neglected as a child, or simply did not care to look after himself properly. While Lupin is described as patched and threadbare, Snape is not and never has been. We are only told that he had greying underpants. He has also been employed reasonably well, one would assume, for 16 years, with limited expenses. Why would he live in a hovel, when appearances are so important to him? KJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 02:15:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 02:15:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142066 > > Meri: Reading this chapter the first time, my thoughts were: "Snape, > you bonehead! An unbreakable vow? My god he really is evil!" But > reading it twice there are so many double entendres of sorts. It is > almost like reading GoF knowing that Moody is really Barty Crouch, > Jr. You can see so many multiple meanings in everything, and since > we don't know Snape's motivations yet we can have all this fun > trying to sort them out. My second read through I was sure that > Snape was lying about knowing about "the plan" but he just > improvised to make it seem like he was more knowledgeable than he > was. Alla: The funny thing is that I was incredibly annoyed with Snape at my first reading NOT necessarily because he took UV ( I mean for that too of course), but for some reason " spinned him a tale of deepest remorse" hurt my ears and eyes SO badly. I think I just felt so bad for Dumbledore, I suppose and I always imagined " remorse" to be essential part of Snape's character and mocking remorse just did not go well with me. I mean, it is possible of course that he was lying, but I am not so sure. I think I agree with Nora now even more than I used to - there is SO little than we knew about Snape and everyone of us filled the blanks differently and when we did not as author imagined, when we learn more about how JKR intends to fill in those blanks, we get dissapointed. I mean, while I am certainly NOT a fan of the " man behind Snape's character" so to speak, I AM a huge fan of the character and I certainly filled many blanks incorrectly, I am of course not saying that I am correct in final predictions about Snape, I am only talking about what we know about Snape so far, but even this knowledge was enough to change my perception about Snape ( not as a teacher of course,that will never change, but as Order member). Oh, and actually on my first reading I thought that Snape did not know about the task, because of him saying that he knows the plan before Nrcissa has a chance of actually say anything, but these days I don't think so anymore > Marianne: > On a discussion of Snape on "The Sugar Quill" someone commented on a > potential parallel. Snape swears to protect Draco in a ceremony > sealed with fire. Years ago, Sirius swore to protect Harry as > godparent in a ceremony which, I'm assuming, was sealed with water. > Is there some significance to those two elements? Alla: Hmm, I don't know. Are there any potential penalties involved in Godparent's oath, if such exists? I mean, I understand that if Godparent fails to protect the godchild, he /she is not going to drop dead, but maybe some symbolic words are spoken at christening like " if I don't do it, I will be punished or something like that? I am not a Christian, so I have no idea. As to fire and water , according to JKR fire is Gryffindor's element and water is Slytherin's element, so IF there is any kind of parallelism here, I am inclined to see contrasting parallelism ( Ceremony based on Love and Ceremony based on... something ( I mean, love could be a factor too, I suppose), because JKR switched elements, or maybe she did not have anything like that in mind at all, I don't know. JMO, Alla From agdisney at msn.com Mon Oct 24 21:57:24 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:57:24 -0000 Subject: Strange Dumbledore( was What about the strange language?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142067 > Ginny343: > > [...] > > But here is the thing that has me wondering. JKR writes "he thought > > he understood" not "he understood" . . . so that makes me think DD > > was muttering in some strange language for another reason. And I > > wonder what it could be? Or, I could just be reading too much into it disneymom: I'm rereading the COS for the 100th time and in chapter 9 pg 142 is another reference to DD's other language. *Dumbledore was now muttering strange words under his breath & tapping Mrs. Norris with his wand but nothing happened. She continued to look as though she had been recently stuffed.* Just a reminder. From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 03:08:26 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:08:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142068 > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? I think this was Bella being 'on the run'. > 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights > that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's > edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in > the late 90's? I've been rooting for EastEndCockney!Snape for a while, so at first I thought it might be Limehouse, but that didn't really fit--it's hardly far enough away from Westminster. The alternative grotty row-house childhood would take you up North to Yorkshire or therabouts. Sociologically speaking... JKR might be thinking of of somewhere like Bradford or Leeds, which are known for race riots and soccer hooliganism, and would be an appropriate setting for Snape as a young skinhead (with a Pakistani father!). > > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? I'm pretty sure this is Snape's childhood home, because it matches his air of chip-on-shoulder low-class boy done good, and why waste a great location by having his summer residence somewhere else again? JKR wants to tell us something about Snape and who he is here. Also, the "none of our kind have ever been here" line felt like Exposition to me, so I think it's preparing us for Snape backstory. > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. SUICIDAL SNAPE!! I'm sailing this dingy, darn it. > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the > feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? > How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? I think the padded cel thing was about Snape, but I was struck by the fact that this is the second time we've seen a DE (or DE hanger-on) go to Snape for help when they're in bad trouble. Karkaroff did in OoP, and neither of them try to either bribe or threaten Snape for help-- they seem to think he'll help because he's, well, a decent human being. I love that the Death Eaters sense that, but the Order doesn't... Karkaroff seems to have suffered from a lack of batting eyelashes though! > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm > not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! > Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, > nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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 > 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? The wine and the books and the toasts to the Dark Lord and the suave Snape and the straight-from-the-net explanations for Snape's actions gave me an overwhelming feel of fanficciness. In general I was expecting this book would feature amping up of Snape as suspect, so I wasn't surprised by it. > > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and > is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have > serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in > OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this > just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow > compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? It made me think of the old bit about the guy promising a genie/Beast/god to give them the first thing that they met when they went home that day, expecting it to be their dog, and of course it always turns out to be the beloved daughter instead. Never make a Promise with a capital P in a fairy tale! > > 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other > Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than > Harry's. ...(BIG SNIP). How do these three chapters > work together? I loved the Other Minister chapter, but I did find it disorienting to have two non-Harry chapters, and then back to normal. I wish she'd been able to fit it somewhere else-- I think it would have worked well at the start of PoA. Thanks, Potioncat! From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 03:19:52 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:19:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: <1f6.15289b56.308ee31b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142069 An excellent summary, and many well-thought-out comments, to which I have little to add, except an observation. This chapter seems full of foreshadowing and contrast, specifically with The Lightning-Struck Tower. The fox taken by surprise, the hex on the fox (a silent AK or something else?), and its dropping to the ground dead foreshadow Dumbledore's death. The towering mill chimney foreshadows the Tower. The drama centering around protecting Draco and Snape's choice to protect him contrasts with the protection Dumbledore offers and the choice Draco must make for himself on the Tower. There is, of course, the Unbreakable Vow, dark magic for a dark purpose. Snape's look of disgust at Narcissa's begging for help compares with his look upon Dumbledore's supposed begging. Narcissa's bold declaration that Snape could do it! In other chapters: Wormtail's listening at doors, probably as a spy for Voldemort, contrasts with Snape's allegedly doing the same at the Hog's Head. There is foreshadowing of the horcruxes in the discussion Bellatrix' being entrusted with precious things and the diary. Snape first brags about his skills as an actor in this chapter, throwing into doubt Dumbledore's trust. Narcissa looks like a drowned thing ? an inferius? The wine drunk in honor of the Dark Lord (after which Narcissa begins begging) contrasts with the potion drunk by Dumbledore to defeat the Dark Lord (after which Dumbledore begins begging). New information not picked up later in the book is that Snape claims there were rumors about Harry being the next Dark Lord. Of course, Snape reemphasizes how much like his obnoxious father Harry is. I don't know if this adds much to the discussion ? it feels like a book report from long ago, actually. But anything else I could say would be wild speculation, always fun but better saved for another forum. lealess From ayaneva at aol.com Tue Oct 25 05:27:43 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:27:43 -0000 Subject: Snape as the dark young man/Extra Material On Trelawney's Card Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142070 I'm not sure if I should change the subject header or not... meh. I'll leave it. > > Valky: > Thanks for the compliments AyanEva. :D And I don't see any spelling > mistakes, which word did you think you'd spelled wrong? They all look > right to me. Me: I'm never certain that I've spelled legilimency properly<---still not sure > > Valky: It is Dumbledore that points > us to this as Harry's love power so that is why I consider that a > possibility. In this case I think that perhaps Snape having been > exposed to this power in Harry's fifth year, has learned to wield part > of it in certain spells or has simply learned that you don't need eye > contact to read Harry because of it. > Me: Do you mean that Snape's "feeding," for lack of a better word, off of Harry in order to manipulate Harry's love power for casting spells? I'm really frustrated by my inability to determine just how powerful Snape is...or how powerful Harry is, for that matter. All we get are glimpses. *sigh* I just had a thought and it may relate to the water/air discussion. Ok, taking the HBP textbook, we see Snape as pure intellect and not a shabby amount of raw power. We see snippets of Harry as OK intellect (I'm not very impressed), but also with what could possibly a heck of a lot of power (If only he had applied himself sooner!). It almost seems a balance, no? I'll delve into this more a little further down. Valky: > The second theory Harry and Snape are > now 'mindlocked' for want of a better word. Me: That's fascinating! (I sound like Spock!) And that last line comes into play yet again, (paraphrasing) "Blocked and blocked again, Potter, until you learn to close your mind!" Now that I read it in light of the mind-reading theory, it's pretty clear that Snape *knows* Harry's next move before Harry makes it and Snape's NOT making eye contact. How can he? He's running and dueling; he hardly has time for a staring contest. That would be how Snape totally whomps Harry in that particular duel. I mean, we know Harry can cast a shield charm that knocks people into desks, he's dueled Lord Voldemort and got off a few close shots, dueled Death Eaters in the DOM, but Snape just swats him down like an irritating fly. When I was reading, I remember being suprised at how poorly the duel went on Harry's end. I expected a bit of a battle. Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Just thought of something else. Many of us have been thinking that Snape's going to help Harry somehow or another in Book 7, maybe this theory could provide some sort of method by which Snape can render assistance! See, we know that Voldiepoo has a connection to Harry and can manipulate his dreams, though he seems to have been "scared" away or oddly silent otherwise. So, if Harry and Snape are somehow connected *without* Harry realizing it, Snape could give him messages in the form of dreams... There's the problem of Harry not believing them to be real, after OOTP and all, but if they're not bloody violent dreams and perhaps if the message bearer is in the guise of Dumbledore... Then again, Snape could just use his Patronus that we keep getting hints about. But the dream idea is more fun. >Valky: > The third theory is exactly as you supposed AyanEva, which is simply, > without complication, that Harry is projecting such a strong aura that > any accomplished enough legilimens in the vicinity only needs to pay > attention to hear his head rants clear as a bell. > Me: So, I'm going to assume that if Harry's projecting a strong aura, the point at which he began to do so is in the DOM battle when he pushes Voldie out. I can't think that it would've been prior during the Occlumency lessons, because we would've seen from hint from Snape, I think. This makes me want to go back and examine the end of OOTP where Harry and Draco are fighting, Snape comes up and demands to know what Harry's doing; Harry back-talks Snape and feels like he (Harry) wants to kill him (Snape). Snape just gives Harry an odd kind of thoughtful look, rather than getting angry and indignant like I fully expected him too. I can imagine Snape thinking, "What the- ? That wasn't me! I can hear his thoughts! Holy crap!" and completely forgetting to get mad at Harry's audible and mental comments because he's so sidetracked by this revelation. Valky: In any of the three cases there is some support in canon. There is > especially support for the third, as it is apparent even Dumbledore > can hear Harry's unspoken words sometimes. (See - in the spidery > broomshed.) > Me: So perhaps Dumbledore, being more powerful than Snape, sensed the projection first even when it was very weak. Snape picks up on it only later when it's stronger. But it still seems to me that Snape could hear *more* of Harry's thought by the end of HBP than Dumbledore. Or maybe what we saw was Snape actively listening, while Dumbledore listened more passively? > > Valky: > You know AyanEva, it really *could* be. Of course, I'd still say > Snape's wrong and JKR is right, Harry doesn't have it in him to hide, > so he probably won't. OTOH it would make sense that Snape felt all the > more urgency to push him that way if Harry *is* projecting. (whatever > flavour Snape you prefer ) Me: Well, I don't think Snape is saying "hide away! run!," he saying, "hide your mind so Voldiepoo doesn't know your gameplan." I think it's more a case of having a sound battle plan, then it is a "save your own hide and withdraw" kind of thing. Snape's advice doesn't preclude the use of love and other powerful mental abilities that Harry might have. Snape just wants Harry to stop "shouting" out his next move. > > Valky: > Snape is Water/Air > (Slytherin/Ravenclaw) to save time I'll just paste something from this> site: http://www.astrology-numerology.com/elements.html > on the Water/Air combination - > > A little bit Snapeish isn't it? > Me: It's very Snapish. Which leads me to my next inquiry, and this ties into the Intellect versus Raw Power question that I had above. I think Harry is Fire/Water. I can't find anything on what happens when you put Fire/Water with Air/Water... Wah. I don't know how to read these things nearly as well as you (I don't know how to read them at all!). I know the following few sentences are stating the obvious, but bear with me, there is a point at the end! I think that Harry has the ability (power-wise), but not the knowledge (to get the horcruxes and defeat Voldiepoo). Snape has the knowledge but, for any number of possible reasons, lacks the ability or is prevented from utilizing said ability. Harry's willing to jump in and get things done, Snape thinks things through and eases his way in. I think both methods are going to be needed in the final battle(s). What I'd like to know is if the elemental signs of the two will give us any insight on how feasible it is for them to work together and what sorts of things each person would bring to the table, should they end up working together at some point (indirectly or otherwise), that is. AyanEva *yawns and wanders off to bed* From Nanagose at aol.com Tue Oct 25 06:16:56 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:16:56 -0000 Subject: Edition discrepancy in "After the Burial" (Re: The first-years conspiracy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142071 Jen: > I remember reading a correction page put out by Scholastic, seems > like Arthur Levine was answering some questions about possible > errors, but I can't locate it now. Anyone remember this? Christina: You might be thinking of this page: http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/faq.asp#errors ...but I could have *sworn* that he addressed the differences in Dumbledore's speech to Draco at the end. Something like, "...we only want the readers to be confused when they are supposed to be confused," and he seemed to hint that the lines were added for clarification. His list of errors here also doesn't address the 12 hours/24 hours, unfortunately. Christina From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 06:09:43 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051025060943.11343.qmail@web34908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142072 lucianam73 wrote: "Oh, but I don't think memories work as real life. You can remember something that happened last year and mix it up with something else that happened last month. I mean, memories do not have dates to them. The Tom Riddle/pineapple memory (if it is indeed a memory used as a "mix-up" and not something entirely made up) happened 50 years ago; the foggy memory could have happened any time. If the boy Slughorn is shouting with is R.A.B. (more likely, because Regulus was in his house at Hogwarts and mixing the two scenarios would be plausible), that happened about 20 years ago. If the boy is ... Percy Weasly, or Draco Malfoy, or someone else in the present, the foggy memory most likely happened not many months ago." CH3ed: If I remember correctly Jo Rowling gave an interview (I think it's the one on July 16th) and clarified that penseives recreate the whole event of the memory as it happened (without the distortions of personal interpretations or biases) and even record details that one may not have noticed at the time. I really don't see anything in the memory Harry got from Slug after the burial that points to it being inaccurate (or less accurate than the obviously tampered one the DD got). Slug clearly distorted the original one because he was ashamed of being obviously partial to young LV and let slipped to LV a dangerous information that led to LV becoming, at the present, immortal. Also, what caused you to believe the first- years nicked Felix? beside that they may not like the way Ron treat them? I don't think they would even know what Felix is or does (different years take different lessons, don't they?... maybe except for when the fake Moody was showing off doing unforgivable curses). CH3ed escaped Katrina and Rita but is now drowning in HP posts.... and FEMA is nowhere in sight!! From hitchyker at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 06:19:56 2005 From: hitchyker at gmail.com (Collin M) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 06:19:56 -0000 Subject: Edition discrepancy in "After the Burial" (Re: The first-years conspiracy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142073 "Jen Reese" wrote: *snip* > Jen: Uh-oh, problem with editions here. *snip comparison of Bloomsbury & Scholastic* > I remember reading a correction page put out by Scholastic, seems > like Arthur Levine was answering some questions about possible > errors, but I can't locate it now. Anyone remember this? Collin: Don't know about a correction by Scholastic, but on p.188 US Slughorn does say "'Enough for twelve hours' luck.'" So it seems to just be a Scholastic error in part of the book. From hg_skmg at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 01:34:11 2005 From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:34:11 -0000 Subject: Edition discrepancy in "After the Burial" (Re: The first-years conspiracy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142074 hg: > > However, it seems to me, from my reading of the text, that JK > > indicates in several places/ways that Harry has indeed taken > > Felix, and it has indeed worn off long before he gets the memory > > from Slughorn. She has Slughorn explain how much is in the > > bottle, then Harry remember that amount incorrectly; Jen: > Uh-oh, problem with editions here. I happen to have both the > Scholastic and Bloomsbury texts > If the Bloomsbury is the correct one, Harry was most likely *was* > then under the effects of Felix while getting the memory. hg: Well, heck. I looked it up on the lexicon, they've got a list of differences btw the editions: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html My assertion is still valid in terms of the timing, thank goodness, a point I actually had to defend elsewhere. Harry's gone about five hours. He returns to the castle after getting the memory. So the Felix would have been out of his system at the point he and Slughorn are alone. So it doesn't matter which edition is correct -- he's off the Felix either way, as far as I see it. Should I say "thanks" Jen? ;) hg. From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Tue Oct 25 07:13:05 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:13:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP2, Spinners End: sociological habitat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142075 One of Potioncat's excellent questions: "The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in the late 90's?" Clearly the industrial infrastructure no longer exists; we're in what used to be Dark, Satanic Mills territory but is now a postindustrial waste land, or Waste Land ... can't help hearing echoes of TS Eliot in that ghastly canal; from half-blood prince to fisher king, I wonder? The fisher king being the agent of redemption, wounded until the magical object is applied to his old injury to heal it ... might work, at that! As such, its inhabitants will be out of work and on the dole - enough government subsidy to keep them alive, but not much more. Think Andy Capp cartoons - one traditionally lies around all day watching TV, drinks a lot of beer and eats takeaways. Sure enough, the fast-food litter indicates invisible inhabitants. You are not allowed to work while drawing unemployment benefits; therefore, anyone in this kind of neighbourhood with more money than usual is illegally employed. And the neighbours will not notice! They will not notice the gang activity either - there's been rioting in Birmingham in the last few days, gangs of black and Asian young men causing major mayhem. Security cameras may spot them, but the people next door won't. Ditto the drugs, the prostitution, the protection rackets. (Birmingham's a long way to the south, but there are analogies.) Which means that they wouldn't notice Snape either, or PP, regardless of whether Spinners End contains an unplottable house or not. Good security, and a wonderful atmosphere of seedy decay, work gone to waste, hopelessness hanging over it like the smoke from the chimneys used to do when there was work available, busy housewives and noisy children. What I'd like to know is where all those books came from. Never a very literate neighbourhood at its best, I don't think ... so maybe they were inherited from Mother Eleanor. Interesting titles, no doubt. Deborah, remembering a sixties hit: We've got to get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 25 13:25:33 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:25:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142076 > Neri: > First, there's no need for an almanac. You just google "Edinburgh" > (or any other nearby city), "sunset" and "sunrise" and you > immediately get several weather and astronomy sites that would supply > you with the numbers. She doesn't even need to be so exact as to go > for any specific year. > Pippin: You do, because you're internet savvy. Until very recently, JKR was not. The death of Sirius is Harry's darkest hour and was most likely imagined as taking place just before dawn for that reason, long before JKR discovered the online world. According to what she says, she never even knew there were whole web sites devoted to Sirius until just after she'd written his death. Neri: > Secondly, why would JKR bother to plot the timing of Harry's actions > in such a consistent way? Pippin: I'm not sure what you mean by this. The dramatic confrontation at the end of each book *always* takes place after nightfall. I would think the metaphoric value of having Dumbledore finally deciding to enlighten Harry as the sun comes up would be obvious. > Neri: > If Snape deduced Harry could catch a thestral and fly to the DoM, as > Dumbledore said he did, then IMHO it would be *much* more logical for > him to warn the Order about this before he goes to the forest. This > way both possibilities (Harry in the DoM and Harry in the forest) are > covered immediately, and especially the more dangerous of the two. Pippin: I'm not sure you're interpreting this correctly. According to Dumbledore, Snape grew worried that Harry still believed that Sirius was a captive of Lord Voldemort's and deduced where Harry had gone when he didn't return from the forest. Dumbledore doesn't say anything about thestrals -- Snape doesn't need to know *how* Harry's planning to get to the Ministry, just that it's vital that the Order intercept him should he get there. It's the reason Snape doesn't become concerned sooner that the reader is left to wonder about. Your hypothesis, as I understand it, is that Snape *was* concerned, but put off notifying the Order as long as he dared because he wanted Harry to fall into Voldemort's trap. In that scenario, of course Snape would have to have realized that Harry was travelling via thestral, because how else could he have expected Harry to reach the Ministry before the Order? But there's no canon that he knew or could have deduced it without going into the forest, which according to Dumbledore, he didn't intend to do until after he'd notified the Order. It seems absurd that Snape would lie about something like that when there is a whole castle full of ghosts and portraits who could be keeping tabs on his movements. Alternatively, you hypothesize that Snape should have become concerned as soon as he knew Umbridge had gone into the forest with Harry regardless of whether he thought Harry was trying to get to the ministry or not. But why? Umbridge was ready to perform an unforgivable curse in front of witnesses -- she has no fear of the law, so there's nothing she could have done to Harry in the forest that she wouldn't have been just as capable of doing in the castle. Snape surely understands that, whether he knows about the crucio or not, because she's asked him, twice, to supply her with a potion she's not entitled to use. > Neri: > There's a very simple way to achieve this: just avoid having Umbridge > summon Snape to her office. He simply wouldn't know about all this, > find out from the Slyths several hours later that Umbridge took Harry > to the forest and that they didn't came back yet. Pippin: Um, then Snape wouldn't know about Harry's vision, and he wouldn't have any idea that Harry was trying to get to the DoM. He'd report that Harry was lost in the forest, the Order would go looking for him (and probably get entangled with the centaurs), and Lucius would have obtained the prophecy for his master. In fact it's hard to understand why ESE! Snape wouldn't have ignored, or pretended to ignore, what Harry was trying to tell him and done just that. It is not clear that the Order was still keeping a guard at the DoM -- we don't hear anything about it after Arthur was attacked. It seems that at that point they changed their strategy from trying to block access to the DoM to trying to block Harry's visions. It would have been foolish to keep the guard there once Rookwood had escaped. Voldemort would no longer be trying to reconnoiter. If the prophecy went missing, that in itself would reveal that Voldemort had returned, which was the Order's main objective at that point. . A> Neri: > I don't know yet what are the requirements of JKR's plot. I'll know > that only after Book 7. All I can say for now is that certain > developments and well-specified timelines don't fit the official > explanation very well, but OTOH could fit quite well with an ending > in which Snape isn't the hero who always has Harry well-being and the > Order's cause in mind. Pippin: Trouble is, while the fandom may be of two or three minds about Snape's allegiance, Harry isn't. As far as Harry is concerned, Snape showed he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen. To Harry, Snape is a dark wizard, he's always been a dark wizard, and Dumbledore was sadly mistaken to suppose he could ever have been anything else. JKR has very carefully arranged for Harry's attitude to be the mirror of Snape's attitude towards Sirius in PoA, with the added fillip that Harry himself is the naive eyewitness. She drops anvil-sized hints that compared to what Snape and Dumbledore know about magic, Harry might as well be a Muggle. So how do you see this tidbit of yours coming into play? Harry's not looking for additional evidence to convince him that Snape's a loyal DE, so he can't come to it that way. At some point, maybe someone will try to convince Harry that he's mistaken about Snape. But somehow I can't see this as the clinching counter argument -- "If Snape really had my well-being and that of the Order in mind, he'd have sent the Order to the MoM sooner!" It will all be rather convoluted to explain, won't it? OTOH, we've had Snape claim credit for information which helped Voldemort dispose of Sirius. If that's true, it's far more damaging and easy for the reader to understand than a supposed five hour delay. What information this is, if it exists, we don't know. We can expect fireworks when Harry finds out. But this supposed delay doesn't fill the bill -- I can't see how it's information in any way. One thing about DDM!Snape, it requires the minimal amount of explaining. Only two other things need to be accounted for: the events on the tower, and Snape's corrosive attitude towards Harry and Neville. Granted those are biggies, so much so that some have indicated there's no rationale, excuse or exoneration they'll accept. But I think that says more about the sensibilities of some readers than the possibilities of the narrative. Pippin From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 13:18:42 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:18:42 -0000 Subject: FILK: Interpretation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142077 "Interpretation" To the tune of "Anticipation" by Carly Simon. Inspired by, commissioned by, and dedicated to that summarizing sorceress herself, Potioncat. Also dedicated to Neri and the others in the Intrepretation thread. I did try to find a midi, but no luck. Sorry. Maybe you remember it from the Ketchup commercials in the 70's. We all speculate about the book to come And we think about them every day, ay, ay And I wonder if I'm reading with you now Or if words hit us in a diff'rent way. Interpretation, interpretation, It's making me think. We're just speculating. And your theory, how eas'ly could be the real, sure truth. If you're right, the crow feed is on me. But I, I reread those words just late last night, And I was thinking about how right I just might be. Interpretation, interpretation, It's making me think. We're just speculating. In the next years, we will find out together Who's a prophet, and which one knows Joanne's ways. So we'll try and read between the lines right now And have our fun, 'cause these are our glory days. These are our glory days, We'll have our fun, 'cause these are our glory days. These are our glory days. (repeat and fade) Ginger, who will truly miss all this when it's over. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 25 15:04:57 2005 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:04:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142078 After snipping Potioncat's great summary, Elyse rbs her hands in glee and delves into these excellent questions. Thanks Potioncat! > > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over > her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger > happy, or is it just Bella? Elyse: I think its just Bella. To this woman, Cruciatus is a routine everyday curse,I doubt she has any qualms about throwing Killing curses around. Also the AK is understandable for someone who spent years in Azkaban and doesnt want to revisit anytime soon. She made the mistake of getting caught once, and closely escaped Azkaban again a few weeks back. She'll be damned if shes going to get caught a second time, no matter how many people she has to kill to avoid it. But what really bothers me about this scene is why she didnt say the words of the curse aloud. She is certainly loquacious enough in the rest of the chapter, so why be silent when casting a Killing Curse? The dark mood of the chapter would have been enhanced by lines like "A harsh cry of Avada Kedavra pierced the night..." or something like that. Is the omission of the incantation significant? Is this foreshadowing the possible use of a non verbal spell in the Lightening Struck Tower? Or are we going to see a silent Avada Kedavra in book seven? > > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? Elyse: Actually I've never been convinced that Bella was a part of Snape's Slytherin gang. I know Sirius says so in GoF, but I remember the ACID POPS threads that it was Narcissa who was closer in age to Snape and the Marauders. If it was Narcissa as opposed to Bella who was a classmate of Snape's, and if this is really his childhood home then I can see a possibility of her knowing where he lived. OTOH this seems highly unlikely since her pleading with him seemed to consist of "You are Lucius' old friend" and not "You are my old friend/classmate/gangmember" But if this was, as has been speculated, a temporary fixture in the style of Slughorn,a sort of on-the-run location, broken into and fixed up, it makes the question even more interesting. If it was just a random house that they were using, how did Narcissa know the place unless she had been told? How come she knew the streets so well that she never took a wrong turn in those twisting lanes? I doubt the street signs, if any survived undamaged in such a neighbourhood, were legible in the light of the broken streetlamps. How does she know the way so well that she never gets lost? Hmm.... I better place an order for those ACID POPS..... > > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or > the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is > his usual home away from Hogwarts? Elyse: If it was his usual home away from Hogwarts, he should have had some good solid furniture. I doubt that rickety table was great for writing essays on. The lack of personal knickknacks like photos etc and the minimalistic interior decor makes me discard this as his home aay from home. Snape is an antisocial person, I expect him to spend more time in his house than the average fellow, maybe slightly agoraphobic tendencies anyway. Snape's house is his sanctuary. I expect it to be more comfortable if not aestheically pleasing. As for the dark padded cell description, it bothers me a lot. Why are all four walls stacked with books? Even the doors couldnt be left alone for Pete's sake! Couldnt he keep the books in his bedroom instead of blocking the entry and exit routes? Or couldnt he get magical bookcases that expand like the MoM cars Harry goes to Diagon Alley in? This compulsive papering of the walls is slightly freaky IMO and does suggest that he needs therapy. And of course there is always Suicidal!Snape.... > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the > feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about Narcissa? > How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Elyse: May I be the first one to propose Suicidal!Narcissa? I can imagine her feeling suicidal when both her son and her husband are going to be killed somewhere in the near future, and she would be next in line for punishment once Draco fails and Lucius goofs up again. But hey, if your going to kill yourself, take as many people as you can down with you! Go to Snape's asylum...oops, I mean house. Take your lunatic sister who should be in an asylum, force the man to take a *suicidal* vow to save your son from his *suicidal* mission given to him by a homicidal maniac. Oh and accept some *blood red* wine of questionable nature from a man who is supposed to be *dead*...now there a way to go out of this world! > > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm > not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: Vampire! > Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In English ballads, > nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" wine. 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? Elyse: If you believe in Suicidal!Narcissa, JKR is certainly waving a "blud-red" flag. > > 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? Elyse: Oh the chapter was so full of images, and they all had an impact. The snakelike cords, the interplay of shadow and light, the pale trembling hands of Narcissa and the infamous twitch... But I want to know exactly where in canon it says Narcissa is "wraithlike". She is described as slim, not skinny. Slender, yes, but skeletally thin, no. And why is Bella never referred to with respect to size? Is Bella a bit on the plump, matronly side? It doesnt seem fair to mention Narcissa's frame if Bellatrix if thin as well. And when it says the chimney reared up like an "admonitory finger" did anyone else think of a rude hand gesture,or was it just my dirty mind? Elyse, who has to rush and has no time to respond further, but isnt worried because she has nothing original to add anyway From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 25 15:21:48 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:21:48 -0000 Subject: Under the influence or not? (Edition discrepancy in "After the Burial" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142079 > hg: > My assertion is still valid in terms of the timing, thank goodness, > a point I actually had to defend elsewhere. Harry's gone about > five hours. He returns to the castle after getting the memory. > So the Felix would have been out of his system at the point he > and Slughorn are alone. So it doesn't matter which edition is > correct -- he's offthe Felix either way, as far as I see it. > Should I say "thanks" Jen? ;) Jen: Oh you're welcome, glad I could help ;). Actually, I prefer the idea Harry was off Felix for plot reasons as well as character reasons. Here's something hg mentioned in post #142020: hg: I think the hugeness, then, lies in Harry behaving as he does of his own accord, Slughorn making his choice freely without being subject to any magical influence, and the likelihood that Harry erroneously assumes that Slughorn will remember nothing the next day. Jen: Regarding plot issues first, Harry feels confident Slughorn won't remember giving the memory. I wondered in my first reading why that would matter because either way, Slughorn is now in great danger. We already know Voldemort is a much more accomplished Legilimens than Dumbledore (or more willing to use this ability?), even capable of implanting false memories at age 16. So it doesn't matter at all whether Slughorn remembers giving the memory, if (when) Voldemort catches up with him, the evidence will still be there. And Slughorn will pay. That memory basically outlined Voldemort's entire plan for immortality and surely is the reason Slughorn spent the last year moving all over Muggleville to get away from him and the DE's. Given that Slughorn basically gave up his *life* when he gave that memory, I'd prefer to think he was a Slytherin acting bravely of his own free will, much like Peter the Gryffindor chose to act cowardly. I think Slughorn knew *exactly* what he was doing that night, and perhaps guilt and insecurity about his own abilities kept Harry from understanding the magnitude of the situation. (Course, JKR doesn't have to take that route, but if she does, the situation is already laid out there). Thinking about the event in terms of characterization, the point that Harry, like Ron, was able to uncover his own natural abilities while believing he was under the influence of Felix appeals to me. As I mentioned awhile back in a post called Obsession, the theme of free-will vs. magical influence is a big one in HBP, particulary with the Merope/Riddle storyline, love potions in general, and the DADA curse apparently influencing some of Snape's actions. Or maybe I didn't mention this particular aspect, so I'm adding it here :). Felix, too, can be used for ill-gotten gains. Harry considered using it for snaring Ginny and following Malfoy into the Room of Requirement, two things he was obsessed with in HBP. Perhaps the fact he didn't use Felix for those two things was enough for JKR to make the point, but I prefer the idea Harry openly used his Slytherin abilities to get what he needed from Slughorn. He did use the Felix to *set-up* the proper conditions as Hermione pointed out: "Luck will only get you so far, Harry. The situation with Slughorn was different; you always had the ability to persuade him, you just needed to tweak the circumstances a bit." (chap. 24, p. 484, Bloomsbury) But then in a Riddle-like way, Harry obtained the information he needed from Slughorn. JKR makes this parallel very clear when Harry is viewing the real Slughorn memory shortly after, that he knows exactly how Tom feels trying to wheedle information from Slughorn, how carefully he played his cards, just the same as Harry with Slughorn only minutes before. So I see a two-fold reason for Harry to discover the Felix was out of his system when he obtained the memory. Jen From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Oct 25 15:59:01 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:59:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142080 > Elyse: Oh the chapter was so full of images, and they all had an > impact. The snakelike cords, the interplay of shadow and light, the > pale trembling hands of Narcissa and the infamous twitch... > But I want to know exactly where in canon it says Narcissa > is "wraithlike". She is described as slim, not skinny. Slender, yes, > but skeletally thin, no. *(snip)* Ceridwen: I'm not sure if I'm the only one, the first one, or one of a few who mentioned 'wraithlike' Narcissa. But, I know I did. Not in relation to her size, though, but more atmospherically: adj : lacking in substance; "strange fancies of unreal and shadowy worlds"- W.A.Butler; "dim shadowy forms"; "a wraithlike column of smoke" [syn: shadowy]WordNet ? 2.0, ? 2003 Princeton University (from dictionary.com) I think the entire set-up of Spinner's End is written with an eye to the eerie, the ethereal. All of the images I noticed at first, and the ones I pick up on each reading, makes this seem more like Hallowe'en than July. I see Narcissa as a wraith, in this context, (also from dictionary.com): An apparition of a living person that appears as a portent just before that person's death. The ghost of a dead person. Something shadowy and insubstantial. (The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright ? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved) It just feeds the feeling I'm getting from the chapter. That's all. Thought I'd nip this before it became like canon. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 25 16:34:47 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:34:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP2, Spinners End: sociological habitat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142082 > Deborah wrote: > snip > > Which means that they wouldn't notice Snape either, or PP, regardless > > of whether Spinners End contains an unplottable house or not. Good > > security, and a wonderful atmosphere of seedy decay, work gone to > > waste, hopelessness hanging over it like the smoke from the chimneys > > used to do when there was work available, busy housewives and noisy > > children. > > > > What I'd like to know is where all those books came from. Never a very > > literate neighbourhood at its best, I don't think ... so maybe they > > were inherited from Mother Eleanor. Interesting titles, no doubt. > > Potioncat: > > > Here's a link to a great essay about a possible source for Spinner's End by June > Diamante, (a HPfGU member) It includes a couple of pictures, including ?? one that could be "the chimney". There's a brief description of mill towns and an idea for the location. > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/junediamanti/139235.html > ?? Take a look, if only for the photos. It probably doesn't matter in the long run, but I'm very curious about > Spinner's End as Snape's current and past home and about Eileen. We'll > discuss her later, I'm sure. > > I think Spinner's End is his boyhood home. Or at least one he visited. > It fits very well with Snape's memory as seen in chp 26 of OoP: > "A greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his > wand at the ceiling, shooting down flies." > > And from the Pensieve in chp 28 of OoP: > "Snape-the-teenager had stringy, pallid look about him, like a plant > kept in the dark." > > Spinner's End sounds like a dark place to grow up...for Wizard or > Muggle; and a place where flies would buzz around in a dark room. > > The memory of the yelling man, cowering woman and crying child is in an > undescribed room, and could be the one we see in Spinner's End or some > other room. That means, if Severus lived at Spinner's End, he and > Eileen could just as easily have been at the Yelling Man's house > (Grandfather Prince?) > > For its current purpose, it provides Snape a great deal of solitude, no > one is likely to drop by just to discuss old DE days. > > As for the books... > Does he have them because he's doing research for the Dark Lord? Does > he have them because he loves books in the way Hermione does? These > sound like very nice books. And if this is the case, it sounds as if he > spends more money on books than he does on physical comfort. > > But I have to admit, I was recently in a tiny conference room, facing > two convergent walls completely covered in books. I thought to > myself, "It does look like a padded cell!" That is, it looked like what > I think a padded cell might look like. I wonder if JKR in all her > dealing with agents and lawyers had found herself in that situation and > put it in her book with no other reason....Nah.. Potioncat: I removed this post for some quick editing. Now it has extra > symbols and a few other odd ones. Oh well. Do check out the link! > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 17:39:56 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:39:56 -0000 Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142083 Carol earlier: > > And if it didn't, blame the requirements of JKR's plot, not Snape, without whose action in sending the Order to the MoM, Harry and his friends would be dead. > > > > Neri: > I don't know yet what are the requirements of JKR's plot. I'll know > that only after Book 7. Carol: You don't? I stated the plot requirements in my post. You actually left some of them in your response, which I'll requote: > > Carol earlier: > > *The plot* requires Snape to contact the Order at about the time the kids are fighting the DEs (setting aside whatever time it takes them to get organized and arrive at the DoM, into which you can't Apparate directly). Carol again: The requirements for the Harry-centered (main) plot, which you snipped, are (quoting my previous post): "*What JKR needs* is for Harry to get into the forest with Hermione and Umbridge, ditch Umbridge, be rejoined by their DA friends, fly to the MoM, be met by the DEs, fight the DEs, be rescued by the Order just in time, then have Harry fight Bellatrix and have Voldie arrive followed by DD just in time to fight him. *This plot requires* that the Order be delayed and that DD be delayed even more so that his arrival roughly coincides with Voldie's (accomplished through his talk with Kreacher at Order HQ). If Harry and his friends had arrived with the Order already there, they would either have watched the fight from the sidelines or been scolded and sent home. Somehow, that wasn't quite climactic enough." (No emphasis in original post) So we *do* know *what the plot requires* on Harry's side, and Snape's actions must be made to fit into *that* plot. The Order *must* arrive after the kids have spent some time fighting the DEs; DD *must* arrive after Sirius's death, just in time to save Harry from Voldie, etc. *The plot requires* some sort of delay on Snape's part (perfectly explicable if he doesn't realize immediately that Harry has gone off on what Snape knows to be a wild goose chase), but *it also requires* him to send the Order (and DD) in time to save Harry and the kids. So whatever Snape does behind the scenes (and we're only told part of it) has less to do with him and his motives than with JKR's need to squeeze in all this action. (And anything that happens after the Order arrives doesn't really count in the time frame, anyway. It's only what happens after Harry communicates the vision to Snape and the moment the Order arrives that we need to consider. So the sun rising as DD talks to Harry has nothing to do with any supposed delay by Snape.) What matters, IMO, is that Snape *did* send the Order and that, in so doing, he saved the lives of Harry and his friends (or enabled the Order to save them, if you prefer). He even tried to keep Sirius Black at HQ to wait for Dumbledore, which would have saved *his* life if he had listened. If DD continues to trust Snape without reservation, as he clearly does throughout HBP, then there's no reason to suppose that Snape didn't do everything necessary and possible in finding out what was really happening and informing both the Order and DD (whose intended arrival at HQ Snape could not have known about if he had not himself contacted Dumbledore). (I know you think you've answered this point satisfactorily, but I remain unconvinced.) Carol, with apologies for reiterating her argument and hoping that she's added at least some clarification of her points From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 25 18:26:05 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:26:05 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Interpretation_(was_Re:_Dumbledore's_=93peaceful_expression=94=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142084 Neri wrote: > On the beach of Theory Bay, Neri sits on a large cannon engraved with > the words "The Missing 5 Hours" and considers Potioncat's words. > Neri: > Now, if I somehow missed all those list members that take my word for > canon, can you please please point me to them, so I can properly > gloat about it? I promise to send each of them a personal e-mail > explaining that Snape's delay isn't canon. But only after a proper > gloating . Potioncat, giving the cannon a couple of raps with her knuckles. Are you sure this is a real cannon? Well, I'm horrible at searching, let me just say it "seems" like I've ome across a great many posts Of course, I'm as good as maths as JKR is. However, your work (I know a lot of people were involved, but you can claim leadership) on the time line is fairly well accepted ...almost as canon. Even among some of those who don't agree with your interpretation of the events. > > Neri: As I recently wrote, JKR might as > well leave it as is, or plug it with some excuse, or she might give > it a role in the plot. But the hole is there regardless. We can also > continue to argue (and I'm sure we will) what Snape did about it, and > should he have done more, but this isn't a theory too, it's an > argument. So I prefer The Missing 5 Hours. Wasn't it you who > originally coined it? You were always good at this stuff. Potioncat: No, I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not at all good at the acronym names. But I think re-reading this has answered a question I intended to ask...(Here it is anyway) Do you believe that JKR *intended* a clue/hint/backstory that has Snape delaying his report to the Order for reasons that reveal negligence at best or treachery at worst? And we may or may not hear anymore about it from her? So this discussion, like OOPS, may never be resolved. Potioncat nods, and begins to sing softly (so as not to hurt anyone)...These are our glory days.... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 19:31:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:31:55 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142085 I skipped some questions in my previous post, so once more unto the breach, good friends: > 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in the late 90's? Carol: I read the article Potioncat linked to elsewhere and agree (based on my limited knowledge as an American) that Spinner's End is probably in Yorkshire. However, JKR has an excellent ear for accents (e.g., Hagrid and Seamus) and I hear nothing of Yorkshire dialect in Snape. Maybe his mother spoke the gentrified English of the Prince family, with something like a BBC accent? Snape's speech is that of a cultivated and educated man, not one who grew up in a derelict Muggle neighborhood. I'm betting he was homeschooled and didn't associate with any Muggle children, much less go to school with them. And if he grew up in a Muggle neighborhood, how in the world did he teach himself so many hexes before he even went to Hogwarts? He must have had some contact with other wizards, including his Prince grandfather. His mother, best known as the president of the Gobstones Club, doesn't seem like the type to teach him, or to line her Muggle husband's house with leather-bound books. No, the books must be Snape's own. If he owns the house outright, he'd have few other expenses other than dress robes (which we occasionally see him wear) and food. Anyway, the neighborhood seems ominous. It presents "an admonitory finger" to both Narcissa and Bellatrix, as if *they* faced danger in entering it. But I seem to be alone in thinking it an odd place for Snape to hide in unless it's completely deserted. He doesn't look, dress, or act like a Muggle, and he'd be violating the Statute of Secrecy every time he appeared on the street--as were Narcissa and Bellatrix, Apparating into a Muggle neighborhood in their hooded cloaks, even at night--if there were Muggles around to spot them. I can't imagine a Wizard boy and his Witch mother living in this neighborhood. I'm guessing that Tobias kicked them out very early on and they moved in with the equally abusive Grandpa Prince. If Spinner's End was indeed Tobias's house, young Snape would have inherited it when his father died. (I know I'm speculating, but I can't reconcile the Snape we've seen with a child!Severus who lived in this neighborhood. > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. Carol: A quick note on "wraithlike" in relation to this question. I used "waiflike," which may have been construed by some posters as an error for "wraithlike," but I do know the difference between a waif and a wraith. Narcissa, to me, had the air of a homeless child--helpless, wide-eyed and defenseless, more drowning than drowned and badly in need of rescuing by someone more powerful than herself. But I agree that "drowned" suggests that she's already dead. That image, along with the "admonitory finger" and LV's displeasure with the Malfoys in general, doesn't bode well for Cissy. And I'm well aware that Narcissa isn't always in "helpless victim" mode, as she showed in her angry hexing of her own sister. > 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other than Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person limited-omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the Muggle Prime Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" dispenses with a point-of-view character altogether. Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic or third-person objective point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's as if both the narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene, much like Harry on the tower. How does this change in the point of view affect our reading of this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose this point of view rather than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or Bellatrix's mind? How does having a chapter written from a point of view other than Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series itself? Should JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to maintain a Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? Carol: I held off responding to my own question because I wanted to hear what other people had to say. I also confess to a teacherly impulse: It bugs me when people refer to Harry as the narrator, when in fact JKR normally uses a limited omniscient narrator who usually but not always sees events from Harry's point of view. I found it interesting that she used the same narrative strategy in "The Other Minister," enabling us to see from the POV of the bewildered Muggle PM, so that to some degree we empathized with him, and, more important, she could use his previous encounters with Fudge as flashbacks to summarize the relevant portions of earlier books without resorting to clumsy exposition. I think that Fudge, seen from the PM's perspective rather than Harry's (and contrasted with Scrimgeour), also becomes a more sympathetic character. (Weak and in over his head, but not an ally of the DEs and at least trying to keep the poor ignorant Muggles informed of their danger.) As almost everyone has realized, such a device would be less effective in "Spinner's End." We don't need Bellatrix's POV, which is fully evident from her words and actions (This woman is teaching her nephew Occlumency? No wonder Snape detected it so easily!). Nor do we need Narcissa's, which can be determined by comparing her words and actions before and after she sees Snape. Her desperation and her trust in Snape are real, and I would argue that her sobs and tears are real as well. There's the question of when the UV idea occurred to her, but I don't think she came there intending to trap Snape into it or she would have wanted Bellatrix with her all along. As for Snape, even if JKR could enter into his mind and convincingly render his thoughts, she wouldn't want to because his motivations are central to the mystery. We can't know what the task is or whether he is bluffing or to what extent he is lying to Bellatrix or why he agrees to the UV. In fact, there would be almost no need to interpret this chapter if Snape were the POV character. Better to dispense with one altogether. And of course, Harry's POV (the so-called Harry filter) is missing. Not only do we see all three characters depicted objectively for the first time (notice that Snape's hair, which still frames his face in black curtains but is not described as "greasy," and there is no mention of a hooked nose or the ugliness that Harry and Ron see in him), but we see them interacting without the presence of students, Order members, Muggleborns, or anyone else. We see the antagonism between Bellatrix and Snape and his control of the situation as she acts her questions, we see his contempt for Wormtail, and we see a surprisingly complex interaction between him and Narcissa which is open to interpretation. We also see a humanness in the sisters-- Bellatrix's concern for Narcissa (weaker than her allegiance to the Dark Lord but still present) and Narcissa's fierce loyalty to her husband and son, the Slytherin counterpart to Molly, Lily, and even Muggle Petunia, all variations (along with Mrs. Crouch) on the devoted (wife and) mother theme. Who would have thought that she would resent criticism of her husband so strongly? DE wife and Dark Lord supporter or not, she clearly loves him. And we would never have seen this side of Narcissa had Harry been present. His view of Narcissa is shaped by encounters like the one at the QWC in GoF and Madam Malkin's in HBP. And Snape. We see him as he appears to the DEs and their associates; we see how he has managed to survive despite Voldemort's earlier belief that Snape had left him forever; we see him dealing in very different ways with the two women; we see, at times, the familiar inscrutable expression; we see his intellectualism reinforced by the walls of books and his wizardization of a Muggle house; we see traces of his contempt for both Wormtail and Bellatrix and hints of real friendship between him and the Malfoys. And we see him trapped by bonds of fire in what is clearly an ominous and powerful magical agreement. But our questions about him remain unanswered thanks to the combined revelations and concealments provided by the third-person dramatic narrator in this chapter. > > 10. 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: Aside from the escape from Harry's POV provided by the first two, we are allowed insights into what's happening in the WW with regard to Voldemort. Chapter 1 answers the question of what's happened to Fudge and introduces us to Scrimgeour; "Spinner's End" sets up the Draco plot, providing essential information to which Harry is not privy, and preparing for the crucial role to be played by the UV in the tower scene. It also enables us to recognize at least some of Harry's interpretation of the later encounter between Draco and Snape as misinterpretation. ("Helping" Draco doesn't mean what Harry thinks it means.) And of course chapter 3 ties in with Snape by revealing that someone else will teach Potions this year, meaning that Snape at last has been given the "jinxed" DADA position, which we later learn is actually cursed by Voldemort himself. Quite possibly all three chapters occur at the same time, or at least on the same night, meaning that Snape, who surely anticipates that he'll be given the DADA position at this point but chooses not to reveal this information to the sisters, officially receives the post without knowing it before the UV takes place. Thematically, the chapters move from the WW at large to an important character whose relationship with Harry (as hiself and as the HBP) shapes much of the book, to Harry himself and the familiar Harrycentric point of view. Some of the exposition has been gracefully accomplished by these clever deviations from the normal POV, but JKR must still resort to Daily Prophet articles and notes to lead us back into Harry at the Dursleys'. Carol, stepping out of McGonagall mode From heos at virgilio.it Tue Oct 25 19:53:15 2005 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:53:15 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142086 Hi everybody...there's something bothering me about this story of Horcruxes. If I remember it well, according to Dumbledore Voldemort made 7 Horcruxes (let's suppose, for simplicity's sake, that he had already his 7 before murdering the Potters - it doesn't change my problem). So Voldie has split his soul in 7 parts: 1) a part of soul in himself 2) Nagini 3) the ring 4) the diary 5) Slytherin's locket 6) something of Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff 7) Hufflepuff's cup Ok, so here is my question: the night the Potter died, Voldemort got an Avada Kedavra curse (the one that rebounded) but he didn't die because his soul was not only in his body, but had been split in different objects. So that night, as I understand the whole business, his body died along with the piece of soul inside it, but as there were 6 other pieces safe Voldemort was not destroyed. This would be, IMO the logical view of the matter. But it isn't, because if it was, we would have a less Horcruxes left. So my question is, if someone makes Horcruxes, does that mean that the soul inside him cannot be destroyed as long as the extern parts of his soul has been destroyed? Looks like it. A killing curse, therefore, has no effect upon a split soul, but only on a whole soul. But if this is right, why don't all the bad guys make one? Or even important good ones, without whom the war cannot be won? I thought at first that the seven parts of the Voldemort's soul were all little Voldie, and that from each of them a new Voldemort could reborn if the 'true' one was killed (as in Godric's Hollow). But appearances point to something else: it seems that Horcruxes are different parts of soul, parts that the person won't be able to use again, the good parts of him. Dumbledore agrees with this when he says that Voldemort grew less human with the passing years; JKR agrees when she says that we'll find out why Voldemort is so evil. In this case though, what gain there is in destroying the good parts of Voldemort's soul? Voldemort is powerfully magic; surely a golem composed with the part of his soul he threw away because not evil enough could be interesting? But at the same time, this cannot be right: the part of soul we saw, the diary Tom, was unpleasant and cruel; what did Voldemort lost for being separated from it? His memory of that period? His memory of what it was like to be sixteen? Ok, I'll stop here with this rambling, I just wanted to know if someone has understood this piece of Dark magic. bye chrusotoxos From agdisney at msn.com Tue Oct 25 16:05:06 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:05:06 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's Card Reading Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142087 Something to throw out. Why does Snape have to be the one that Trelawney is *reading* about. She tells Harry things that she is sure are correct like his birthday in winter. Harry's birthday is in July but Voldy's is in winter. Since we presume that Harry is carrying around part of Voldy, is that what Trelawney keeps having problems with. She keeps mixing the two of them up because they are too intertwined? Agdisney From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 20:20:57 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:20:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142088 Carol: > I read the article Potioncat linked to elsewhere and agree (based on > my limited knowledge as an American) that Spinner's End is probably in > Yorkshire. However, JKR has an excellent ear for accents (e.g., Hagrid > and Seamus) and I hear nothing of Yorkshire dialect in Snape. Maybe > his mother spoke the gentrified English of the Prince family, with > something like a BBC accent? Snape's speech is that of a cultivated > and educated man, not one who grew up in a derelict Muggle > neighborhood. Me: It's actually Snape's speech that made me picture him as a low-class boy who reinvinted himself. It's too perfect, to the point of being stilted-- compare his speech to the upper-class Draco or Sirius. Even Lucius Malfoy doesn't use such convoluted phraseology. I like the idea of a mum who married beneath herself in class as well as magic, but I can still picture young Snape carefull practicing his elocution with a tape-recorder and the BBC. -- Sydney From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 25 20:23:19 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:23:19 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142089 > Carol: >snip> >I'm betting he was homeschooled and didn't associate > with any Muggle children, much less go to school with them. And if he > grew up in a Muggle neighborhood, how in the world did he teach > himself so many hexes before he even went to Hogwarts? He must have > had some contact with other wizards, including his Prince grandfather. Potioncat: I agree. Someone had to teach him, or he had to be like Hermione, learning the curses from books. But, what I find odd or at least curious, is how JKR pictures WW homelife. The Weasleys live down the road from a town. Arthur and Molly are fairly clueless about Muggles, yet the twins spend enough time in the town to impress a girl with their magic tricks. On JKR's website there is (or was) an ad for something that would keep your Muggle neighbors away so that they wouldn't see the magic being performed in your home. The Gaunts lived so close to a street that conversations of passers- by could be heard in the house. 12 GP is in the middle of other two other houses (I picture townhouses, but I'm not sure if that is correct.) So, how does any Wizarding family keep itself secret? I'm not sure if this house belonged to Tobias who worked in the mill, or if it was a converted wizarding house that Muggles couldn't see. Carol: > His mother, best known as the president of the Gobstones Club, doesn't > seem like the type to teach him, or to line her Muggle husband's house > with leather-bound books. Potioncat: Oh, dear. First Snape, then Molly now Eileen. Boy, am I going to get a bad name for defending these people. I think Eileen gets "No respect" for being President of the Gobstones Club. Gobstones is an incredibly popular game and there is even a department for Gobstones at the MoM. (There is canon for that, I just don't have it with me.) It seems to me that if anything, we see her in a leadership role on a recreational team that is competitive enough to play against other schools. OK, it isn't chess. It isn't dueling. It isn't even Quidditch. (Sorry, I was channeling Hermione.) But there is nothing to indicate that it's a third string activity. I wouldn't think an interest in Gobstones would automatically mean she wasn't good at other activities or other magic. I think she must like books, otherwize she would have sold her textbooks as soon as she could. The fact that Snape used them tells me she cared enough about them to keep them. She wasn't young when Snape was born either. So it's not like she knew she would need them for his schooling. (I'm basing her age on being at Hogwarts "50 years ago".) Carol: > If Spinner's End was indeed Tobias's > house, young Snape would have inherited it when his father died. (I > know I'm speculating, but I can't reconcile the Snape we've seen with > a child!Severus who lived in this neighborhood. Potioncat: I can't either. I just can't come up with much else. From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Oct 25 20:34:24 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:34:24 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142090 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hg_skmg" wrote: > hg: > lucianam, I agree that Harry not being under the influence of the > Felix is a huge thing -- but at that point our thinking seems to take > separate paths. I hope that I can contribute something valuable to > you anyway, especially seeing how much you've put into your theories. > > I think Harry had the real thing, and it wasn't working anymore by > the time he got the memory. He thinks the bottle holds 24 hours' > worth, but it holds 12; he takes a "carefully measured gulp" which, > if he drank the amount he thought he was, actually covers him for > only 60-90 minutes. Plus, he leaves at sunset and arrives back at > the castle past midnight. Even if the Felix had worn off by the time Slughorn gave Harry the memory, by this point, Harry had wheedled him and gotten him drunk. It's still due to the Felix that Harry receives the memory at all. (I do happen to think it's the right memory, though I'm not sure how Dumbledore knew that memory was SO IMPORTANT.) It is a good point that maybe something ELSE that happened in the hut could have gone better if Harry had measured more carefully. Something relating to Hagrid, maybe? Allie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 21:23:40 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:23:40 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > > Hi everybody...there's something bothering me about this story of > Horcruxes. > > If I remember it well, according to Dumbledore Voldemort made 7 > Horcruxes (let's suppose, for simplicity's sake, that he had already > his 7 before murdering the Potters - it doesn't change my problem). > So Voldie has split his soul in 7 parts: > 1) a part of soul in himself > 2) Nagini > 3) the ring > 4) the diary > 5) Slytherin's locket > 6) something of Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff > 7) Hufflepuff's cup > > Ok, so here is my question: the night the Potter died, Voldemort > got an Avada Kedavra curse (the one that rebounded) but he didn't > die because his soul was not only in his body, but had been split > in different objects. So that night, as I understand the whole > business, his body died along with the piece of soul inside it, > but as there were 6 other pieces safe Voldemort was not destroyed. > bboyminn: I can't tell you what is, only what I think. Here is my take on the Horcruxes. In a sense, the /remote/ soul-pieces have been put into new bodies; the new bodies are the various material objects they have been tied to; ring, locket, cup, snake, etc.... As long as they have a 'body', they are tied to the earth. When Voldemort experienced the rebounded curse, his body was destroyed, but the other embodies soul-pieces held his home-soul piece on the earth; so in a sense, he was not truly dead. Now to a common mistake, in my opinion, that people are making. Some people assume that the actions of the Diary typify a Horcrux, but I don't think that is true, and I think we/you are engaging in flawed thinking when you uses the Diary as a model or example for all Horcruxes. The Diary wasn't merely a Horcrux, it was Voldemort's 'Plan B'. It was his backup, a potential way to re-embody himself, if the need should ever arise. The problem is that the new Riddle that would be created by the Diary takes its lifeforce from the new owner/victim, in this case Ginny. Now the new Riddle would have a body and a brain and most importantly a Will of his own. The Voldemort home-piece-soul that was wandering around Albania, would want to join with the new Riddle body. But now you have two life-forces, two separate but similar Will occupying one body. That could cause complications. Best to create a wholy unique body as Voldemort did with the Blood-Flesh-Bone Charm/Potion. So, the point is that the Horcrux aspect of the Diary was only one small part of it. It was designed and created for a greater purpose than merely being a Horcrux. The Diary was meant to be found and used; Horcruxes are meant to be hidden away and guarded at all cost. So, the Diary's actions DO NOT model the standard actions of a Horcrux. Now to how the Horcrux works; again, I'm just presenting my opinion. The only thing we know of so far that seems to have the ability to destroy (or consume) a soul is a Dementor, and I assume that is exactly what a Dementor does, it consumes a soul. The soul is the lost to both heaven and earth. Other than that, souls don't die. The soul is the eternal part of ourselves that has no end; that why it's eternal. Harry's task is not to destroy the souls, but to release them from earthly attachment. So, I suspect that when a Horcrux is destroyed, the soul piece is released for its surrogate 'body' and return to where ever it is that souls go; Heaven, nirvana, or whatever is consistent with your belief system. So, Harry doesn't destroy the soul-piece, he has to destroy the 'body' that is containing it. When that is done, that soul-piece is no longer earthbound. The whole point of the Horcruxes is to keep the soul earthbound. When Voldemort suffered the rebounded AK, his soul remained earthbound; it did not 'pass over'. When all the remote soul-pieces are released, then the home-soul-piece is no longer earthbound by anything other that the one and only body that contains it. Now, I'm not closed to alternate interpretations, maybe the soul-pieces don't go to 'heaven' as soon as they are released; maybe they wander the earth aimlessly as disembodied unattached soul-pieces or maybe the rejoin the Home-Body-Soul-piece. If they do rejoin the Home-soul, I don't think they actually re-join with it, I think they simply take up residence in the home-body but unattached to the home-soul. When the home-body is destroyed then the home-soul and soul-pieces are freed from earthly existance. Regardless of the exact mechanism, the key is that Horcruxed soul-pieces are tied to the earth by their surrogate bodies. Regardless of what they do when released from those surrogate bodies, they are no longer earthbound, and it is only that earthbound quality that keeps Voldemort safe. As to Voldemort moral deterioration as he moved pieces of his soul to their surrogate bodies, I think in general, we have a spiritual deterioration of Voldemort. He is losing his spiritual essense and that is the source that all good radiates from. I don't think it is actual good that is lost, which explains why Diary-Riddle was just as cruel as the original. In a sense, the distinction is between general goodness and specific goodness. I think general goodness is what is lost and that is tied to the spirit; specific goodness is tied to the personality and the body, in a way, it represents earthly or physical goodness as opposed to general spiritual goodness. I realize that I'm making a very fine distinction, but even good people do bad things, but that doesn't erase their goodness, they have a core spiritual goodness, and they understand that they have done something bad and they regret it. But without that core moral compass, you don't understand that something is bad. Voldemort thinks torture and murder are fun and games, he has lost his moral core. > > Ok, I'll stop here with this rambling, I just wanted to know if > someone has understood this piece of Dark magic. > > bye > > chrusotoxos > bboyminn: No harm in a little rambling (as is clear from my rambling post). To your core question, why four instead of three. Maybe you just had a miscount. The four are - Nagini, Slytherin's locket, something of Ravenclaw/[Gryffindor], and Hufflepuff's cup. Voldemort himself, in a sense, doesn't count because he is the Home-Horcrux, he is the final soul-piece that must be destroyed. He can't be destroy until the other four soul-pieces have been released from earthly existance. Again, whether they go to the realm of spirits, or wander the earth aimlessly, or return to the Home-Body is irrelevant. The key is that once released from their surrogate bodies, they are no longer earthbound, and Voldemort is no longer protected by them. Remember, I just make this stuff up. Steve/bboyminn From kmalone1127 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 21:14:52 2005 From: kmalone1127 at yahoo.com (kmalone1127) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:14:52 -0000 Subject: Snape, the Prophecy, the Potters, Longbottoms and Wormtail. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142092 kmalone1127: This is my first post so I hope I did everything right. A sudden thought occurred to me about Snape. It occurred to me as I was reading some of the discussions about the Ch. 2 summary questions. Someone (don't remember who) mentioned that Bella looks down on Wormtail because Voldemort met his downfall on his info. That made me think about Snape and how he overheard the propecy. Forgive me if this has been discussed before, I haven't been able to read every post. This is how I see it going down. Trelawney starts prohesising and once she statrs, nothing will stop her. Dumbledore hears a disturbance outside the door but can't leave for risk of missing something. Sanpe had been listening but was caught by Aberforth and they started to struggle. Aberforth, not being as skilled as his brother, could not manage to overpower Snape and they burst into the room. The prophesy is not that long, it probably did not take up more thatn thirty seconds. From DD's memory though, we know that Trelawney started to repeat it. I think maybe a minuet or so passed. Once DD was sure that there was no more, he went to Aberforth's aid and threw Snape from the building. Aberforth told DD when he first noticed Snape and so DD was able to deduce how much of the prophecy Snape heard. Snape then went to his master. This is where it gets fuzzy. Snape is not an idiot. He had to have known that he did not hear the entire prophecy. Regardless, he felt that Voldemort ought to know that one had been made. This is the sticky part, Snape, knowing that he did not hear the entire thing told Voldemort. Now he either told him that he did not hear the whole thing trusting that his master would be smart enough not to act on incomplete info, or he told Voldemort that he heard the whole thing for reasons that at this point we can only guess at. Remember, this was before he joined DD. Regardless of which, he told Voldemort. Now, Voldemort strikes me as a very methodical person. When he is brought information that there are two boys that might have the potential to destroy him, I see him thinking, "Well I will just have to kill them both." Now, the Potters and the Longbottoms were both very gifted and respected people. It makes sense that both families were in hiding. So when Voldemort got his info, he did not know where they were. Here comes little Peter Pettigrew with the location of one of the boys. In his methodical mind Voldemort would think, "Ah, good. I will destroy this one and then when I know where the other is I will destroy him too." And off he goes. He even says in GoF that he had miscalculated. Perhaps that meant that he had acted hastily on information he either knew to be incomplete or miscalculated in his apparent upswing of trust in one of his agents. Or even something else, I'm not entirely sure. It does speak to a methodical mind, though. I like this way of thinking in that it makes Voldemort seem more realistic that the "Evil Dark Lord going after specific Chosen One". I know that JKR has told us through DD that Voldemort chose Harry because he saw himself in him, but this is from a character that has admitted he makes mistakes. Or perhaps I'm just looking to much into it, us fans tend to do that. Anyway, Back to my original thought, we now have two people in Voldemort's retinue that have helped, on purpose or not, to his downfall. Both of them are in some way connected to Harry, Wormtail through Harry's mercy and Snape through Harr's father and DD. I aslo see a lot of parallels between Wormtail and Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. Both are wretched creatures that have been corrupted by the evil in their hearts that has been magnified by an outside force, both seem to have inner conflicts and both seem to hate and love themselves at the same time. I also see parallels between him and Darth Vader. Both were good before turning to evil and both have a redeeming factor, Vader through love for his son and Wormtail through Harry's mercy, or love. I feel it is interesting to note that Snape is a lot like how Phineus Nigellus described Slytherins. He is very clever, brave to a point, but in the end will do what he can to survive. Perhaps in delivering the prophecy to Voldemort he saw an opportunity to prolong his life. He said it himself to Bella, he had a comfortable position and did not want to give it up. Even if he was lying to her the best lies are ringed with truth. Why did he take Draco with him as he fled Hogwarts? Snape has just made himself Voldemort's top man, he could have left him there for the Order to deal with. I firmly believe that Voldemort meant for Draco to fail, so is Snape taking him back for punishment or for some other reason? I'm not trying to prove anything specific, just offering food for thought. I'm sure that this has been discussed before but I don't know that it has been presented in this way yet. Anyway, that all that was on my mind, I hope it made some sense. Kmalone1127 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 21:53:05 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:53:05 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142093 chrusotoxos wrote: > > Hi everybody...there's something bothering me about this story of > Horcruxes. zgirnius: Hi! I'll see if my take makes any sense to you. I also recommend bboyminn's response for a lot of this, I agree with his take on how Horcruxes work. > chrusotoxos wrote: > Looks like it. A killing curse, therefore, > has no effect upon a split soul, but only on a whole soul. But if this > is right, why don't all the bad guys make one? Or even important good > ones, without whom the war cannot be won? zgirnius: The good guys don't make one because they are not willing to murder anyone. This is a necessary step. If they were willing to take this step, they would IMO not be good guys... I would guess that more bad guys don't make them because: 1) The very existence of Horcruxes, what they are, and the details of how they are made, is a deep dark secret. We do not know how Riddle learned to make them. It is even possible that, once he learned from SLughorn what one is, he figured out how to make it on his own...which would definitely be above and beyond what most wizards could do. 2) Even if it can be learned from the right super-rare Dark texts, for all we know, the spell may be very difficult indeed, perhaps only the post powerful Dark wizards are capable of it. 3) There is the issue of how to get a new body. (Voldemort has minions to help him out with this). 4) Voldemort's existence between his first 'death' and restoration seems to have been pretty darn miserable to me. It may not appeal to all. From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Tue Oct 25 21:57:51 2005 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:57:51 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142094 "Ok, I'll stop here with this rambling, I just wanted to know if > someone has understood this piece of Dark magic." ME - perhaps what Voldemort lost was his sense of purpose. When he started, he might have had a plan to take control of the WW and impose his will on it, but now he seems to have enaged in random acts. What good is it to force Snape away from Hogwarts, or to lose Draco like he did? I think that Voldy's lost his plan - all he can do now is evil. Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Nanagose at aol.com Tue Oct 25 22:13:24 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:13:24 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142095 > chrusotoxos > I thought at first that the seven parts of the Voldemort's soul were > all little Voldie, and that from each of them a new Voldemort could > reborn if the 'true' one was killed (as in Godric's Hollow). But > appearances point to something else: it seems that Horcruxes are > different parts of soul, parts that the person won't be able to use > again, the good parts of him. > Dumbledore agrees with this when he says that Voldemort grew less > human with the passing years; JKR agrees when she says that we'll find > out why Voldemort is so evil. Christina: I don't think that this is what Dumbledore is talking about. We know that killing splits the soul and that a horcrux is a soul-part's external form. I hesitate to start picking the math, because we all know that that isn't JKR's favorite subject, but here I go anyway-- Now, while I don't believe it is strictly stated in canon, I think it only makes sense that each killing would tear one's soul in half, so let's run with that for a while. For simplicity's sake, let's just say that the only murders Voldemort commits are used for horcrux-making. That means his first horcrux would have 1/2 of his original soul in it, and Voldemort would retain 1/2 of his original soul. For the second horcrux, Voldemort would split the amount of soul he currently has in two again, meaning that his second horcrux would have 1/4 of the *original* soul and Voldemort would have 1/4 of his *original* soul. For horcrux #3, Voldemort's 1/4 of a soul splits in half again, so the horcrux and Voldemort each have 1/8 of the original soul. And so on and so forth. In this respect, every time Voldemort kills and makes a new horcrux, the amount of soul he retains is less and less. Also notable is the fact that it seems that each horcrux is less powerful than the one before, since the amount of soul a horcrux contains is half the amount that the last horcrux contained. Could this explain the extra power that Tom Riddle's diary possessed? Now assume that killing doesn't rip a soul precisely in half, but rather cuts of a chunk of unknown size. Still, Voldemort would progressively have less and less of his original soul as he went on and made horcruxes. I think a lot of people assume that each horcrux contains 1/7 of Voldemorts soul, which doesn't make any sense (how would his soul "know" how many horcruxes he wanted to make)? So...Dumbledore's statement that Voldemort grew less human makes sense because he slowly lost huge chunks of his soul as he made his horcruxes. Christina From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 22:21:35 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:21:35 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142096 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > 12 GP is in the middle of other two other houses (I picture > townhouses, but I'm not sure if that is correct.) > bboyminn: I hope this is on-topic enough that I can get away with it. I'm wondering how other people pictured 12 Grimmauld Place and Grimmauld Square in general. Perhaps I was presuaded by some book cover graphics that showed 12 Grimmauld Place as a mansion, but that is alway how I envisioned it. However, given the description of the general neighborhood around Grimmauld Square, it seems unlikely. To some extent I picture Grimmauld Square as old 3 to 5 story apartment buildings separated by a very narrow strip of grass or perhaps a fense. Partly because that's how apartment building are where I live; they aren't attached. But housing space in London is really tight, and it is more likely that Grimmauld Square is made up of 3 to 5 story Row Houses. Row houses would be buildings of various sizes that share a common side wall with their neighbors. In other words, no gap between buildings. This is more likely in London. Also, despite my outward picture of the Black house as a mansion, I get a very /narrow/ sense of the interior space. Also, if you remember the TV show 'The Nanny' with Fran Drescher. They live in what looked like a Row House on the outside, and I guess techically it was, but on the inside it was very much like a mansion. My point is that row houses don't always equal slums. My vision is that the Black mansion has been there for a long time, and that like all landed estates in the city, the surrounding land was gradually sold off as it's value and the related taxes increased astronomically. Land farthest from the Black mansion was developed first, and gradually over the centuries the houses and apartments just crept closer and closer to the mansion. Of course, the Black Mansion itself is well hidden even without the Fidelius Charm, so the encrouching houses would be unaware of its existance. Just curious how other people envisioned the Black house; row house, mansion, simply a large house, stone, brick, wood, ...? To help keep this on topic, let's remember that magic folk living in muggle neighborhoods never really have to interact with muggles. They can come and go by Floo Powder, Apparation, and late night broomstick. They could live rich full lives and yet never be seen coming and going by their neighbors. Just curious about your vision of the Black House. Steve/bboyminn PS: I have this very fan-ficcy vision of the immensely rich Weasley Brothers, at some point in the future, redeveloping Grimmauld Square as a way of protecting 12 Grimmauld Place. As neighborhoods become rundown, they become ripe for redevelopment. Any land and building space in the city of London is precious, and rundown neighborhoods are ripe for redevelopment into upscale housing or shopping areas. So, the Weasleys decide to do exaclty that, buy up the whole block and convert all the building into town homes, luxury flats, and penthouses with a few shops just for flavor. The alternative is for some other redeveloper to take over the neighborhood which could cause problems. If they built a shopping complex on the spot, the new entrance to the Black house could be in the underwear department of Marks and Sparks. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 22:25:52 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:25:52 -0000 Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142097 > > Neri: > > First, there's no need for an almanac. You just google "Edinburgh" > > (or any other nearby city), "sunset" and "sunrise" and you > > immediately get several weather and astronomy sites that would supply > > you with the numbers. She doesn't even need to be so exact as to go > > for any specific year. > > > > Pippin: > You do, because you're internet savvy. Until very recently, JKR was not. Neri: She can also ask her editors to supply her with the numbers. It's their job, and I suspect they know how to use Google even if she doesn't. > Neri: > > Secondly, why would JKR bother to plot the timing of Harry's actions > > in such a consistent way? > > Pippin: > I'm not sure what you mean by this. The dramatic confrontation at the end of each book > *always* takes place after nightfall. I would think the metaphoric value of having > Dumbledore finally deciding to enlighten Harry as the sun comes up would be obvious. > Neri: Fair interpretation. I'd be satisfied with that if not for the other timing clues. Can you now explain to me the metaphoric value of "the sun was falling towards the top of the trees in the Forbidden Forest" in words that are almost identical to those in PoA, *except* for the difference in the sun's position showing an earlier hour, which is corroborated by the different relation to dinnertime, also noted in close proximity in both books? > > Pippin: > > It's the reason Snape doesn't become concerned sooner that the reader is left to wonder > about. Your hypothesis, as I understand it, is that Snape *was* concerned, but put off > notifying the Order as long as he dared because he wanted Harry to fall into Voldemort's > trap. Neri: This is only one of my hypotheses . What I'm trying to point out is that JKR very skillfully plotted Snape's part in the OotP climax so he's in the middle of it, yet from his actions alone, even after Dumbledore's explanations, it's impossible to prove that he's DDM, ESE, OFH or any other (I'm considering another possibility, but that for another post). You see this well-calculated ambiguity in other details too. For example, Dumbledore "proves" to Harry that Snape is DDM by saying he gave Umbridge fake veritaserum, yet only Harry (and us) know that Harry never actually drank that veritaserum. So we (and Harry, if he thinks about it) can't be sure if it was fake or not, yet Dumbledore believed it was proved. Anothe example: you'll note that the second time Snape contacted HQ, Dumbledore specifically notes that there were several Order members there, but the *first* time he contacted HQ only Sirius is mentioned. Was Sirius alone in HQ then? It would indeed be logical for Voldy to start the operation only after Kreahcher reports that he and Sirius are alone in the house. This would enable Kreacher to safely lie to Harry in the fire while Sirius is upstairs tending to Buckbeak. And conveniently Dumbledore never had a chance to talk with Sirius before Sirius was killed. This means that Dumbledore might be depending only on Snape's testimony that he indeed contacted to find if Sirius is in HQ. Maybe Snape never did, but Sirius is conveniently unable to tell us that. > Pippin: > In that scenario, of course Snape would have to have realized that Harry was > travelling via thestral, because how else could he have expected Harry to reach the > Ministry before the Order? But there's no canon that he knew or could have deduced it > without going into the forest . Neri: JKR had Hagrid telling us in the COMC lesson that Dumbledore sometimes uses the thestrals for transportation. Would it be unreasonable to assume that in 14 years at Hogwarts Snape has seen Dumbledore doing so, probably more than once? Hagrid told Luna also, probably in another COMC lesson, about the thestrals being very good at finding places. It seems he's quite proud and open about them. The thestrals in general cannot be missed by anyone who can see them. There's at least a hundred of them, they pull the school carriages, and can sometimes be seen flying above the Forest from the castle's windows. There are also other ways Snape would know Harry reached the Ministry beside the power of deduction. For example, Lucius Malfoy contacting him through one of the Ministry fires to tell him everything goes as planned and Potter had just entered the Ministry. > Pippin: > Alternatively, you hypothesize that Snape should have become concerned as soon as he > knew Umbridge had gone into the forest with Harry regardless of whether he thought > Harry was trying to get to the ministry or not. But why? > > Umbridge was ready to perform an unforgivable curse in front of witnesses -- she has no > fear of the law, so there's nothing she could have done to Harry in the forest that she > wouldn't have been just as capable of doing in the castle. Snape surely understands that, > whether he knows about the crucio or not, because she's asked him, twice, to supply her > with a potion she's not entitled to use. > Neri: All the more reason why Snape should be worried, notify everybody and call in enforcement, whether he knows they're in the forest or not. > > Neri: > > There's a very simple way to achieve this: just avoid having Umbridge > > summon Snape to her office. He simply wouldn't know about all this, > > find out from the Slyths several hours later that Umbridge took Harry > > to the forest and that they didn't came back yet. > > Pippin: > Um, then Snape wouldn't know about Harry's vision, and he wouldn't have any idea that > Harry was trying to get to the DoM. He'd report that Harry was lost in the forest, the Order > would go looking for him (and probably get entangled with the centaurs), and Lucius > would have obtained the prophecy for his master. Neri: I don't think so. OotP is very clear about the Order's strategic situation. I quoted Dumbledore explaining it up thread, and also the proof that Snape knew about it too. This situation is actually very simple. They have two positions to guard: Harry and the DoM. These two positions are closely related, so if one of them is compromised you immediately have to check on the other. And this connection becomes even stronger after the attack on Arthur, and more even critical after Rookwood escaping Azkaban. Moreover, the Order is obviously on the defense and they must employ paranoid security procedures, and indeed they have a paranoid ex-Auror responsible to the security issues. From the Order's point of view, the reasonable response to *anything* even slightly suspicious, and especially something that happens to Harry, especially something involving any mind attack by Voldy on Harry, would be to check what's going on in the DoM. They have three Ministry workers to do that, two of them aurors. > Pippin: > It is not clear that the Order was still keeping a guard at the DoM -- we don't hear > anything about it after Arthur was attacked. Neri: Even if they weren't, they can check on the Ministry security. Surely aurors can do that? They would find that the Minstry guards all disappeared. > Pippin: > It seems that at that point they changed their > strategy from trying to block access to the DoM to trying to block Harry's visions. Neri: But Snape, Lupin and Sirius (and Dumbledore according to the final talk) knew the lessons stopped. > Pippin: > So how do you see this tidbit of yours coming into play? Harry's not looking for additional > evidence to convince him that Snape's a loyal DE, so he can't come to it that way. At some > point, maybe someone will try to convince Harry that he's mistaken about Snape. But > somehow I can't see this as the clinching counter argument -- "If Snape really had my > well-being and that of the Order in mind, he'd have sent the Order to the MoM sooner!" It > will all be rather convoluted to explain, won't it? > Neri: First, I'm not sure it's going to play. It may be mainly proper plotting on JKR's side. If she's going to reveal in the end that Snape is anything other than DDM, then an explanation should exist (even if it's not explicitly explained) for the events at the end of OotP and how could Dumbledore be mistaken about Snape's actions. So JKR carefully plotted them in a way that could be explained by any theory. I also have some ideas about how the missing 5 hours might actually play in the plot, but this is another theory. > Pippin: > One thing about DDM!Snape, it requires the minimal amount of explaining. Only two other > things need to be accounted for: the events on the tower, and Snape's corrosive attitude > towards Harry and Neville. Neri: Don't forget why he made the UV. I'm yet to read a convincing explanation of DDM!Snape for that. Also why he went to Dumbledore only after he realized that it's the Potters that are in danger. And an explanation for the missing 5 hrs would be nice too . Neri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 23:00:34 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:00:34 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142098 > Christina: > For simplicity's sake, let's just > say that the only murders Voldemort commits are used for > horcrux-making. That means his first horcrux would have 1/2 of his > original soul in it, and Voldemort would retain 1/2 of his original > soul. For the second horcrux, Voldemort would split the amount of > soul he currently has in two again, meaning that his second horcrux > would have 1/4 of the *original* soul and Voldemort would have 1/4 of > his *original* soul. For horcrux #3, Voldemort's 1/4 of a soul splits > in half again, so the horcrux and Voldemort each have 1/8 of the > original soul. And so on and so forth. This you must ken! From one make ten, And two let be, Make even three, Then rich you'll be. Skip o'er the four! >From five and six, The Witch's tricks, Make seven and eight, 'Tis finished straight; And nine is one, And ten is none, That is the witch's one-time-one! Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe From heos at virgilio.it Tue Oct 25 23:25:37 2005 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:25:37 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > Christina: > > > For simplicity's sake, let's just > > say that the only murders Voldemort commits are used for > > horcrux-making. That means his first horcrux would have 1/2 of his > > original soul in it, and Voldemort would retain 1/2 of his original > > soul. For the second horcrux, Voldemort would split the amount of > > soul he currently has in two again, meaning that his second horcrux > > would have 1/4 of the *original* soul and Voldemort would have 1/4 > of > > his *original* soul. Ok, let's say it's your fault if math has come into this problem... :D But if it is as you say (and I like very much) I prefer to think that a soul is endless; if you split something infinite in two, you'll have two infinite pieces. It's a math paradox, but infinite can't grow smaller even if it is endlessly split. I don't think, therefore, that the following Horcruxes will be less dangerous than the Diary. Maybe a piece of your soul retains all your qualities, and it's normal that it thinks for itself. I rather think that its power depends from the importance of the murder: the Diary was made with his first murder, the murder of his father; I think this made it very important, probably more so than any other murder he performed later. In this sense, let's hope that the next one will be less powerful. chrusotoxos From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 23:48:45 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:48:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours (Was: Interpretation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142100 > > Carol earlier: > > > And if it didn't, blame the requirements of JKR's plot, not Snape, > without whose action in sending the Order to the MoM, Harry and his > friends would be dead. > > > > > > > Neri: > > I don't know yet what are the requirements of JKR's plot. I'll know > > that only after Book 7. > > Carol: > You don't? I stated the plot requirements in my post. You actually > left some of them in your response, which I'll requote: > > > > Carol earlier: > > > *The plot* requires Snape to contact the Order at about the time > the kids are fighting the DEs (setting aside whatever time it takes > them to get organized and arrive at the DoM, into which you can't > Apparate directly). > > Carol again: > > The requirements for the Harry-centered (main) plot, which you > snipped, are (quoting my previous post): > > "*What JKR needs* is for Harry to get into the forest with Hermione > and Umbridge, ditch Umbridge, be rejoined by their DA friends, fly to > the MoM, be met by the DEs, fight the DEs, be rescued by the Order > just in time, then have Harry fight Bellatrix and have Voldie arrive > followed by DD just in time to fight him. *This plot requires* that > the Order be delayed and that DD be delayed even more so that his > arrival roughly coincides with Voldie's (accomplished through his talk > with Kreacher at Order HQ). If Harry and his friends had arrived with > the Order already there, they would either have watched the fight from > the sidelines or been scolded and sent home. Somehow, that wasn't > quite climactic enough." (No emphasis in original post) > > So we *do* know *what the plot requires* on Harry's side, and Snape's > actions must be made to fit into *that* plot. The Order *must* arrive > after the kids have spent some time fighting the DEs; DD *must* arrive > after Sirius's death, just in time to save Harry from Voldie, etc. > *The plot requires* some sort of delay on Snape's part (perfectly > explicable if he doesn't realize immediately that Harry has gone off > on what Snape knows to be a wild goose chase), but *it also requires* > him to send the Order (and DD) in time to save Harry and the kids. So > whatever Snape does behind the scenes (and we're only told part of it) > has less to do with him and his motives than with JKR's need to > squeeze in all this action. (And anything that happens after the Order > arrives doesn't really count in the time frame, anyway. It's only what > happens after Harry communicates the vision to Snape and the moment > the Order arrives that we need to consider. So the sun rising as DD > talks to Harry has nothing to do with any supposed delay by Snape.) > > What matters, IMO, is that Snape *did* send the Order and that, in so > doing, he saved the lives of Harry and his friends (or enabled the > Order to save them, if you prefer). He even tried to keep Sirius Black > at HQ to wait for Dumbledore, which would have saved *his* life if he > had listened. If DD continues to trust Snape without reservation, as > he clearly does throughout HBP, then there's no reason to suppose that > Snape didn't do everything necessary and possible in finding out what > was really happening and informing both the Order and DD (whose > intended arrival at HQ Snape could not have known about if he had not > himself contacted Dumbledore). (I know you think you've answered this > point satisfactorily, but I remain unconvinced.) > > Carol, with apologies for reiterating her argument and hoping that > she's added at least some clarification of her points > Neri: My apologies. I answered you the first time but it wasn't very clear. I actually agreed with you about the requirements of the Harry-centered plot, which are obvious enough, and then I demonstrated that they can be perfectly satisfied without putting any blame on Snape or the Order and without stretching credibility at all ? simply avoid having Umbridge invite Snape into her office. But JKR insisted on Snape playing a central part in that plot. What are the requirements of *Snape's part* I can't know for sure until Book 7: was he supposed to be DDM, ESE, OFH or something else, and what were his motives here. Therefore I can't use these requirements to prove which plot details are intended and which are flints, and I must use other criteria for that. Neri From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Tue Oct 25 23:18:43 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:18:43 -0000 Subject: Subplot and Lupin in HBP was Re: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142101 > > > Valky wrote (snipped): > > > > I would even have a crack at > > > the timeframe they will return to in case you're interested. > The battle at the D.O.M. > > and Valky again (snipped): > >> The mysterious jet of light that hit Sirius squarely on the chest > needs explanation. ... It will be important to Harry that he knows > who shot the jet of light, he needs to know exactly how Sirius died, I think (and so do I ). Lucianam: Aha!! I don't know if you're thinking about that, but ESE!Lupin fits here?? I'm new in HPfGu and have been reading the ESE!Lupin posts. I was horrified at first, but I have to admit the arguments for it are plausible (I don't mean I believe it, though). I've been searching for the posts that discuss Lupin possibly AKing Sirius in the D.O.M. battle, by the way. If anyone could point me, I'd appreciate it. For what I've been able to fish from a few posts though, the idea seems to be Lupin shot that second jet of light, which was a green one _ JKR never telling us its color in OotP. And I don't know if any posts mentioned Tonks possibly knowing about Lupin being the one who shot the AK? I'm not sure about that because she passed out a long time before Sirius fell through the veil. But: It is stated in OotP Harry saw her duelling Bellatrix across the room from himself and Sirius (thus , and she was knocked out just after a 'jet of green light nearly missed Sirius'. I wonder who shot that jet of green light, if Harry had just shot a Petrificus Totalus on Dolohov, who was the DE Sirius had just been duelling with? And Tonks could have seen who shot it before she was hit, because if Harry could see her acroos the room, presumably she could see Harry and Sirius_who was next to Harry_ as well. Giving the ESE!Lupin theory a try, let's suppose it was Lupin who shot both jets of green light. Tonks would have known about the first one... she'd know Lupin had at least tried to murder Sirius once, even if she never witnessed the veil scene. Of course the big problem with this theory is the last chapter of OotP, in which Tonks (with her hair bubblegummingly pink) is seen standing next to Lupin, apparently in good terms with him. But when you throw in HBP, it does fit. When she talks to Harry in the Unkownable Room corridor, her eyes suddenly become watery at the mention of Sirius's name. Yet, when Harry says 'I miss him, as well' she seems to be thinking in very different lines, and leaves. Well, what lines could those be? Guilt and remorse, perhaps, because she's covering up for Sirius's murderer? She was all lovesick then, so she could have been trying to protect Lupin, but felt guilty about it. In fact, she does seem to be worried about Lupin possibly having murdered someone else, in that very scene. She tells Harry she's worried about rumours of people getting hurt, and Harry thinks she's talking about the little boy who was Imperiused and tried to kill his parents _ the news that was on the Daily Prophet. But Tonks says the Prophet is 'behind the times'. What news is she talking about then, if not the Montgomery boy being attacked by a werewolf (and dying, too)? We learn about the Montgomery boy in the next chapter, and Hermione says the rumour is it was Fenrir Greyback who attacked him. But Tonks is madly in love with Lupin, whom she knows is living with the other werewolves; wouldn't it be natural for her to worry the attacker could have been him, in spite of any rumours blaming Greyback? So HBP Tonks would fit ESE!Lupin I guess; a woman so desperately in love (grabbing his robes in front of everybody says something to me!) she'd cover up for his evil deeds. Maybe he's telling her a bunch of lies anyway, if he's all that evil then why not? > Leah wrote (snipped): > > However, I have to agree with the others who have responded that > the after the burial memory is the right one. If it wasn't then > Harry > would presumably have to spend valuable book 7 time retrieving a > third memory from Slughorn, which would be a revisting of theme that > would occupy, I think, too much dramatic space. Lucianam: In my opinion, we're not done with HBP yet_ in a sense. What JKR said about B6 and B7 being connected, sort of B6 being the first part... well I think it's entirely true. So Harry retrieving the true memory would not occupy unnecessary dramatic space, because his doing so would not be a 'rerun' of what he's done already, but him (and us) finding out of what really happened during Aragog's burial, not to mention finding out who was the boy in the memory! Pretty essential info. In a general sense, actually, I don't think we have much of a clue of what was happening in a huge part of HBP! My feeling about this book is that the real plot was going on right under our noses and we never saw it. Has anyone seen that movie Sixth Sense, with Bruce Willis? Then you know what I'm talking about, when I say 'things going on unnoticed right under our noses' (I don't want to spoil anyone so can't really say anymore). A lot of things, not only Slughorn's memory, are falsely presented as 'resolved' in HBP, but only to fool us, until we see them for what they really are in B7 _ that being my opinion, of course. It's like JKR wrote two plots in HBP: one in the open, the other (the Subplot) well hidden under the clues and oddities. Actually she's always written like that, but we used to get the resolution, aka exposition of the until-then-hidden-Subplot in the last chapters. we can't have that now, otherwise she wouldn't have many surprises left for B7. Lucianam From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Wed Oct 26 00:30:22 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:30:22 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: <20051025060943.11343.qmail@web34908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142102 > lucianam73 wrote: "Oh, but I don't think memories work as > real life. You can remember something that happened last year and > mix it up with something else that happened last month. I mean, > memories do not have dates to them. > > CH3ed (mucho snipped): > If I remember correctly Jo Rowling gave an interview (I > think it's the one on July 16th) and clarified that penseives > recreate the whole event of the memory as it happened (without the > distortions of personal interpretations or biases) and even record > details that one may not have noticed at the time. Lucianam73 wrote: I can see I messed up in what I wrote above, I wasn't clear at all. What I wanted to say is this: suppose I'm Slughorn. I remember Percy Weasley (just joking) invading my house and demanding info about Horcruxes. I tell him off _ 'You'll go wrong, boy!!!!' and send him on his way. That happened this very year, in August. I also remember a nice little Slug Club meeting I had with Voldemort and his DE's, some 50 years ago. I mix up both memories to try and hide parts of one of them from dumbledore, who's knocking at my door demanding right now. So, it is true you do not have dates on memories. The whole point is Slughorn cut off parts of a certain memory and filled the blanks with bits of something else _either a elaborate made-up non-existing memory (I tend to prefer this possibility) or another memory. You'll end up having two completely different sorts of 'material' in the memory we saw in Chapter 'A Sluggish Memory'. Either two mutilated memories or a true memory and a fake. CH3ed also wrote (snipped): > Also, what caused you to believe the first- years nicked Felix? > beside that they may not like the way Ron treat them? I don't > think they would even know what Felix is or does (different years > take different lessons, don't they?... maybe except for when the > fake Moody was showing off doing unforgivable curses). hg wrote (snipped): > Perhaps if there was a > moment in the text when we saw a first-year dash out of the 6th > year boys' dormitory, or a first-year quickly hiding something, or > even if it was pointed out that one of them saw Harry "spike" > Ron's pumpkin juice, I'd ride the creative wave. Was there maybe > something you left out in your original post, something along > these lines? > What leads me to suspect the first-years nicked Felix (quoting CH3ed) are both circumstancial and 'style wise' (dreadful! couldn't think of nothing better...) clues. Circumstances are suspicious, but I don't have any evidence, of the 'sneaking into dorm first-year' kind. The biggest clue, for me, is Ron taking and failing his Apparition test in the very same day Harry drinks FF; of course it could be just a coincidence. But look at the additional little details concerning Ron and his Apparition: he's poor at it and it's a publicly open fact (Snape mocks it, Ron complains about it when the test day is fixed on the common room notice board); even the date of the test is given to us. The rest of the 'circumstancial evidence' is, I completely confess, just more little details, and none of them prove a thing, but still add to my suspicions. For example, there were first-years at the Quidditch try-outs. What if Hermione's Helping Hand isn't just Harry and Hermione's secret? At least McLaggen should suspect he was Confunded, shouldn't he. About the first-years not knowing what FF is, I think they most probably do, because 'Harry Potter won it'. Harry is a celebrity now, and probably everything he does is gossip material. so why not a special prize he won from Professor Slughorn because he's such a Potions expert? And about 'style wise' clues... JKR has a (disturbing) tendency to write a scenario in which a seemingly small mistake leads to unproportionately huge, calamitous consequences. It also usually happens to the good guys (because they should know better?): Little Ginny Weasley dismissed her father's advice of 'never trusting anything who thought for itself unless she could see where it kept its brains'; as a result she is possessed by demoniac Tom Riddle and ends up slaughtering cocks and almost killing fellow students (not to mention almost dying, too). Poor locked-up in misery Sirius Black failed to treat his odious house elf with 'kindness and respect', with well-known results. Reckless Harry Potter didn't study Occlumency as hard as he was (repeatedly) asked to; see results above. Ron Weasley, the boy who 'can be a bit unkind' (quote from Luna), fails to treat his inferiors (in magical education, I mean) with kindness and respect all through his sixth year. Shouldn't any red lights be flashing right now? Lucianam From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 25 22:43:51 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:43:51 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142103 > Chrusotoxos: > So that night, as I understand the whole business, > his body died along with the piece of soul inside it, but as there > were 6 other pieces safe Voldemort was not destroyed. Goddlefrood the dark: Dumbledore clearly states while explaining the horcruxes to Harry that the piece of soul resident in LV's body at the time of the Godric's Hollow incident turned to spirit and fled. This was the piece that we came across first in PS and hooked up with Quirrell after its holiday in Albania. On this basis your initial statement is flawed. Reference is Bloomsbury hardback edition, Chapter Twenty Three - Horcruxes, at page 470 where Dumbledore says: " no, Harry, not seven Horcruxes; six. The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his regenerated body. That was the part of him that lived a spectral existence for so many years during his exile; without that he has no self at all. That seventh piece of his soul will be the last that anybody wishing to kill Voldemort must attack ? the piece that lives in his body." > Chrusotoxos: > > Ok, I'll stop here with this rambling, I just wanted to know if > someone has understood this piece of Dark magic. Goddlefrood the light: A little explanation on horcruxes. We have so far met only one Horcrux, the one resident in the diary. Based on this I conclude that each piece of split soul is unaware of what the other pieces are up to. It is clear that the diary Horcrux was initially unaware even of the attack at Godric's Hollow, having been placed in the diary in the summer of Tom Riddle's sixth year at Hogwarts when he wrote the diary. That the young Riddle who emerged had some information regarding events after being placed in the diary was down to the information he had gleaned from Ginny. It is also apparent that when a piece of soul is destroyed it is not felt by the other pieces or even by the body in which LV is resident. I have also determined that a Horcrux needn't be made at the same time as the act of evil inspiring it. This is based in the fact that Tom Riddle, as seen conversing with Horace Slughorn regarding Horcruxes, has already murdered and rent his soul asunder (a little biblical I know, but how often do you get the chance to use this lyrical language?) It, therefore, seems that the split piece of soul can be placed in an object for safe keeping some time after the tearing occurs. As this is the case the actual placing of the Horcrux in an object for safe keeping could be done at any time after the act of splitting and in the comfort of one's home. This also leads me to believe that Harry is not a Horcrux because the act of placing the Horcrux in an object demonstrably takes place at a different time from the act that leads to its creation. Also Dumbledore would not have spared Harry the fact that he was a Horcrux if he (Dumbledore) suspected that Harry was one. However, if Harry was a Horcrux I also think that he no longer is one because in POA when the multitudinous Dementors are swarming around he, Sirius and Hermione it is quite likely that the Dementor who kissed Harry successfully removed the piece of LV's soul in Harry. This would then mean that there are indeed three Horcruxes left. This is thrown in as a thought, but I do not think it will turn out to be correct. One other point on Horcruxes that I think is true. The first split equates to half a soul, the second to a quarter, the third to an eighth and so on. If this reasoning is right then the piece resident in the simalacrum of LV will equate to only one sixty fourth of LV's original soul and will actually be easier to destroy. The pieces destroyed in the diary and ring I believe to amount to no less than three quarters of LV's soul, meaning he quite literally has one foot and two arms in the grave. To conclude I predict that there are indeed four Horcruxes left and that the first will be in the heavy locket that would not open mentioned as being in Number Twelve Grimmaud Place whose current whereabouts are subject of some speculation. The second will be Helga Hufflepuff's cup, that I believe Zacharias Smith will have a hand in unearthing. The third will be an item found at Godric's Hollow and the fourth will be Nagini. The mystery left at the end will be whether or not there is an additional unlocated Horcrux with the capacity to revive as LV once more. Oh, and R.A.B. will turn out to be Mrs. Black, Sirius's dear mother, but that will be the subject of another post. Goddlefrood From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 01:19:24 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:19:24 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142104 bboyminn: > > I hope this is on-topic enough that I can get away with it. I'm > wondering how other people pictured 12 Grimmauld Place and Grimmauld > Square in general. Ceridwen: I imagine the street as sort-of like a formerly exclusive neighborhood, with the now-ovegrown square of fading parklike greenery in the middle (something from Marry Poppins and other movies depicting Victorian England filmed in the 50s and 60s), with once- stately town homes together shoulder to shoulder. I think this would be the sort of area where the well-off characters from Pride and Prejudice and all other Regency romance books had their homes in town. And, at one time, these homes were owned by affluent country gentlemen and families of lesser title (not princes, but a knight might have a residence here, or a baronet). I also imagine the Noble House of Black as the same sort of people, only from the WW. A country home, and this place in town where they go for 'the season'. And as times changed, they gave up the country estate, or the family estate is divided between brothers, Sirius's branch inheriting the town property while the other branch gets the country place. I don't see it with even the smallest garden out front. Maybe a square in back, for hanging out the laundry and disposing of garbage through a fence into an alleyway. Grand steps lead from the front door directly to the pavement/sidewalk. It is two rooms wide, with a central hallway containing the stairs leading to the private areas of the house. And, it's white. Like marble, or whitewashed to look like marble from a short distance. And, the lower level has that large brick look to it, also painted white. The steps leading to the sidewalk/pavement have some sort of ornament built right onto the wide railing, something like an urn, or an abstract of that idea. The door is recessed into the front, and is the only piece facing the street which has any color other than white. Black, maybe, for the family name. I don't have the book beside me. Inside, the living room is to the right, the stairs to the left, the kitchen door straight ahead. Steps lead from the kitchen into the service area where the boiler is. There would be a door to the back, but I'm not sure where. I think the Black house is a remnant of a more elegant time, in an area that used to be peopled by the haut ton (sp?) but is now probably at least half rented out, and probably divided into small flats with older widows renting out rooms or flats for the income. I imagine Grimmauld Place to be self-contained, opening only onto one secondary street, where you can drive a car around the park spot in the middle to get back out if you drove into it by accident. About two blocks away is a more major thoroughfare with shops, also once exclusive, now catering to the working-class people of the area. Ceridwen, who enjoyed that. From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Wed Oct 26 01:23:34 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:23:34 -0000 Subject: Snape is Innocent! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142105 Pippin wrote (very much snipped): > > I think Dumbledore had a plan to save himself, though I > am not sure it worked. A combination of phoenix tears, > bezoar and perhaps one last vial of the Elixir of Life might > have saved him, if he had time to take them on the way down. > Time will tell. I've taken the liberty of forming an > acroynm: SAD DENIAL II. (Supposing Albus Dumbledore, > Dire Events Negated, Is Actually Living, Is Irresistible.) > Lucianam: Suppose he used the seconds it took him from falling off the tower until he hit the ground _ assuming Snape's AK did fail and DD was alive when he fell from the tower_ to Time Travel? There's clues pointing to Time Travel in HBP, namely each and every single meeting Harry had with Dumbledore being previously scheduled. Time Travel does depend on precise timing (see PoA). The only meeting that is not previously scheduled is the one right after Aragog's burial (but that's another story, since I think Harry retrieved the wrong memory_ kinda off-topic here. If you'd like to check it out, I posted a message about that and Time Travel, # 14202). And then, when all the necessary deeds where done, he finally hit the ground, dead. Only, if Snape's AK didn't kill him, what did? If we're looking at a Time Travel scenario, maybe Dumbledore's real death scene will take place in Book 7. Lucianam From juli17 at aol.com Wed Oct 26 02:32:27 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:32:27 EDT Subject: Snape's timing and the supposedly missing five hours (Was: Interpretation) Message-ID: <220.fb58bf.309044bb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142106 : Pippin: Um, then Snape wouldn't know about Harry's vision, and he wouldn't have any idea that Harry was trying to get to the DoM. He'd report that Harry was lost in the forest, the Order would go looking for him (and probably get entangled with the centaurs), and Lucius would have obtained the prophecy for his master. In fact it's hard to understand why ESE! Snape wouldn't have ignored, or pretended to ignore, what Harry was trying to tell him and done just that. Excellent point, Pippin! I hadn't thought of it before, but how very easy for Snape to simply ignore Harry's plea. Even if Harry managed to survive in the end, Snape can just claim he didn't understand what Harry was trying to tell him. Harry himself didn't think Snape had gotten his message. Also, there's no real point for an ESE!Snape to go through all kinds of contrived "worrying" or even bothering to notify the Order at all about the DoM, when he could have just have whistled his way down to his dungeon and waited for Harry to meet his deserved doom, via Umbridge or Voldemort. My biggest problem with ESE!Snape (or even OFH!Snape) is how often he acts in Harry's best interest, the Order's best interest, Dumbledore's best interest, when it *isn't* necessary. He doesn't have to save Harry from Quirrel, he doesn't have to notify the Order about the DoM, he doesn't have to save Dumbledore from the Ring horcrux, he doesn't have to give Umbridge fake veritaserum, he could probably "mess up" Lupin's wolfsbane potion and then deem it too hard to make, etc, etc. He can avoid all of it, and not jeopardize his position. Why doesn't Snape act like a good little ESE character, sit back and smirk gleefully while everything goes to hell around him, then accept Voldemort's grateful rewards? If he is ESE, he's really bad at it. And, like some who find DDM almost impossible to accept, I'm going to need a *very* good explanation for all Snape's lapses if JKR does make him ESE in the end. (Not doubting that JKR could do it if she wanted, but not sure why she'd bother one-noting the character after all this.) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hg_skmg at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 01:51:12 2005 From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:51:12 -0000 Subject: Under the influence or not? (Edition discrepancy in "After the Burial" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142107 > hg (previously): I think the hugeness, then, lies in Harry behaving as he does of > his own accord, Slughorn making his choice freely without being > subject to any magical influence, and the likelihood that Harry > erroneously assumes that Slughorn will remember nothing the next day. Jen: Harry feels confident Slughorn won't remember giving the memory. I wondered in my first reading why that would matter because either way, Slughorn is now in great danger... if (when) Voldemort catches up with him, the evidence will still be there...That memory basically outlined Voldemort's entire plan for immortality and surely is the reason Slughorn spent the last year moving all over Muggleville to get away from him and the DE's. hg: Agreed, and I think you're right to connect that Slughorn is basically giving up his life (or at least taking a tremendous risk) when giving Harry the memory. I'd like to add that I think Slughorn also wanted to hide from Dumbledore, who seems to ask an awful lot of those close to him. It seems to me that he knows that it's a package deal: If he comes back to Hogwarts, he'll end up having to do more than just teach Potions. Jen: I think Slughorn knew *exactly* what he was doing that night, and perhaps guilt and insecurity about his own abilities kept Harry from understanding the magnitude of the situation. (Course, JKR doesn't have to take that route, but if she does, the situation is already laid out there). hg: I'm not really following this, and I'm eager for you to explain it. Do you mean the magnitude is asking Slughorn to hand over his life? And how does Harry's guilt or insecurity factor in to what transpired? Jen: Harry, like Ron, was able to uncover his own natural abilities > while believing he was under the influence of Felix appeals to me. > As I mentioned awhile back in a post called Obsession, the theme of > free-will vs. magical influence is a big one in HBP...He did use > the Felix to *set-up* the proper conditions as Hermione pointed > out: "Luck will only get you so far, Harry. The situation with > Slughorn was different; you always had the ability to persuade him, > you just needed to tweak the circumstances a bit." (chap. 24, p. > 484, Bloomsbury) But then in a Riddle-like way, Harry obtained the > information he needed from Slughorn. JKR makes this parallel very > clear when Harry is viewing the real Slughorn memory shortly after, > that he knows exactly how Tom feels trying to wheedle information > from Slughorn, how carefully he played his cards, just the same as > Harry with Slughorn only minutes before. hg: Exactly. Of course, anybody believing Harry is a Horcrux could take this and run with it! I'm not sure that I think that way, but the Sorting Hat had its reasons for suggesting Slytherin House in the first place, and here we see this side of Harry, probably plainer than anywhere in the series. If he's under the influence of the Felix at this point, this aspect of the scene is dramatically weakened. I also think it's important to note, here, that there is an impact on Slughorn's character as well. When we learn that he's essentially handing over his life, we are prepared for any choices Slughorn might make from here on in, that would seem to depart from his character as established in the first part of the book. Jen, really looking forward to your elaboration on the point above. hg. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 26 03:34:43 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:34:43 -0000 Subject: Timing: was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142108 > > Ceridwen: >snip > Cissy and Bella go to Spinner's End on what is apparently the same > night as the PM's unexpected visit. The tie-in with the Dementor > fog. It seems to follow right on the heels of The Other Minister, > both in time and in the book... Potioncat: You've brought up some interesting ideas on the tine line (Merlin's Ghost, not another one!) I'm going to keep it in mind as I read the next two chapters. It's the wording that makes me think that chapter two follows immediately after chapter one. HBP chp 2: Many miles away the chilly mist that had pressed against the Prime Minister's windows drifted over a dirty river that wound between overgrown, rubbish-strewn banks. So it reads to me as if chapter two follows closely, if not immediately after chapter one. The issue being, if it is the same mist, how long does it take the mist to drift many miles? >Ceridwin > Big leap: I believe that the street called Spinner's End is in the > charming village of Budleigh Babberton. The only piece of canon I > can offer is Snape looking out the window. I think he was looking > for someone or something. He doesn't raise the curtain, but peers > out. Potioncat: I don't think so. The description of the places sound different to me. Here's the link to what I think the Spinner's End area would look like: http://www.livejournal.com/users/junediamanti/139235.html But, as to what Snape is looking for when he looks out the window? Perhaps he's wondering why his newly adopted pet fox hasn't returned from its nightly stroll? Actually, I think he was looking to see if Wormtail had left the house. He says that Narcissa shouldn't speak, then he looks out the window and tells her that she can speak because he knows the plan. He saw something that told him it was safe to talk. OK, OK, if Wormtail had been listening, why did he pick that moment to leave? Or if Snape knew Wormtail couldn't listen in, what made Snape look at that particular moment to check on Wormtail? Even better, he looks out the window, sees a big stray Tom cat munching on a strange rat...which is why we've heard no more of Pettigrew. Sorry about that. Oh, and the list is getting longer. Chapter 5 starts out with two visitors arriving at the Weasleys...who already have guests. From kgpopp at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 04:53:24 2005 From: kgpopp at yahoo.com (kgpopp) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:53:24 -0000 Subject: The first-years conspiracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142109 > Even if the Felix had worn off by the time Slughorn gave Harry the > memory, by this point, Harry had wheedled him and gotten him drunk. > It's still due to the Felix that Harry receives the memory at all. I > do happen to think it's the right memory, though I'm not sure how > Dumbledore knew that memory was SO IMPORTANT.) It is a good point > that maybe something ELSE that happened in the hut could have gone > better if Harry had measured more carefully. Something relating to >Hagrid, maybe? > > Allie > KP: I was thinking about your question as to how Dumbledore knew the memory was important and When Dumbledore realized that Tom Riddle was a threat, I think he decided to start trying to get all the information he could about Tom/Voldemort because knowledge is power. Therefore, Dumbledore would have tried to get information from anyone that knew Tom before he emerged as Voldemort. Naturally Dumbledore knew that Tom was part of Slughorn's group while in school and would have tried to talk to Slughorn. Now, Slughorn knew that it saw a big taboo for him to talk with a student about horcruxes. He also knows Tom is Voldemort. So when Dumbledore tried getting background on Tom; Slughorn was ashamed/scared and tried to hide his memory from Dumbledore. I think the fact that Slughorn tried to hide the memory is why Dumbledore thought it was important. Now it is not clear if Dumbledore realized the importance of the memory when he 1st talked to Slughorn or if overtime he realized the potential. But, at the point in time when Dumbledore is sharing Tom's history with Harry; it clear that Slughorn is hiding something big. I mean by then Dumbledore already has a good inkling (if not certain) that Tom Riddle/Voldemort had created a Horcrux, because the AK spell didn't kill him. Dumbledore also knows from the "tampered with memory" that Slughorn talked with Tom about horcruxes. Now it stands to reason that if Slughorn tried to hide the memory from Dumbledore then there is more to the story. I don't think Dumbledore knew that they'd learn the number of horcruxes but I think he knew it was important to Tom's past. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 07:16:12 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:16:12 -0000 Subject: Fire Air and Water WAS Re: Snape as the dark young man -Trelawney's Cards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142110 > AyanEva: > I'm not sure if I should change the subject header or not... meh. > I'll leave it. Valky: mmm... I had better change it though, I am about to skew this thread way off Trelawney in places. > AyanEva: > I'm never certain that I've spelled legilimency properly<---still > not sure Valky: I can assure you, that's right AyanEva. The noun for the art itself is spelled with the 'c' and the noun for the artist, legilimens, is spelled with the 's', a bit posh french, really, isn't it? I assume JKR chose to design it this way to punctuate the mystique of this obscure branch of magic. IMO it speaks to it being a classy, elegant sort of magic and I think that is the deliberate subtle implication of the word's design. I could probably do a whole post on JKR's wordsmithing and underlying allusions in the design of her spellwords, but I'll save that for another day. > > > > Valky: > > It is Dumbledore that points > > us to this as Harry's love power so that is why I consider that a > > possibility. In this case I think that perhaps Snape having been > > exposed to this power in Harry's fifth year, has learned to wield > > part of it in certain spells or has simply learned that you don't > > need eye contact to read Harry because of it. > > > > AyanEva: > Do you mean that Snape's "feeding," for lack of a better word, off > of Harry in order to manipulate Harry's love power for casting > spells? Valky: Well yes, and no. Yes because I think Snape is definitely curious about the power that Harry can wield in the sense that he hasn't encountered it before, recognises that it has ultimate? potential from a very objective viewpoint, and is the lifelong learning type of person who is *always* looking for a new levels to explore in magic. And No because I don't think the character of Snape is intended to fulfill any role of draining something from someone, that would be Voldemort's territory, I would classify Snape far more passively than that. So in that sense he is not feeding in a literal way but rather observing, very keenly. I think Snape gets keen to the point where he wants to observe it for long periods of time and that is why he gives Harry a drawer full of reminders of Sirius Black to go through weekend after weekend. > Valky: > > The second theory Harry and Snape are > > now 'mindlocked' for want of a better word. > > AyanEva: > it's pretty clear that Snape > *knows* Harry's next move before Harry makes it and Snape's NOT > making eye contact. How can he? He's running and dueling; he hardly > has time for a staring contest. That would be how Snape totally > whomps Harry in that particular duel. I mean, we know Harry can cast > a shield charm that knocks people into desks, he's dueled Lord > Voldemort and got off a few close shots, dueled Death Eaters in the > DOM, but Snape just swats him down like an irritating fly. When I > was reading, I remember being suprised at how poorly the duel went > on Harry's end. I expected a bit of a battle. Valky: I agree, its fairly clear that Harry has top notch power and fantastic reflexes, hence he can draw his wand on Voldemort fast enough to lock them in Priori Incantatem and he can hold on to a thread of energy with the power to blast him into outer space, he can react fast enough to even a silent spell from Snape and knock him flying over desks. But Harry does not have anything when it comes to attacking in anger, he gives away his moves, he does most of the damage to himself rather than the person he's attacking, and he loses focus and gets attacked from behind when we know he is capable of sensing rear attack quite often. IMO the mindlock theory makes sense in terms of Harry's lack of focus, but otherwise the strongest theory here is his loud aura transmissions. Perhaps even getting louder when he chases Snape because of his emotions there. OTOH it is this scene that most strongly pushes me to blend the three theories into a unified one, where Harry's loud aura is a result of tapping into his power in an uncontrolled way, his sympathies crossed with his determination to never forgive Snape are causing fuzziness in it around Snape which has them mindlocked in a sense but only through Harry's own intentions, and finally that there was a focussed use of Harry's love power in the Occlumency lessons which demonstrates the correct control of it : "A hundred Dementors were swooping towards Harry across the lake in the grounds... he screwed up his face in concentration... they were coming closer... he could see the dark holes beneath their hoods.. yet he could also see Snape standing in front of him, his eyes fixed on Harry's face, muttering under his breath... and somehow, Snape was growing clearer, and the Dementors were growing fainter... Harry raised his own wand. Protego! Snape staggered- " Ch 26 OOtP Seen and Unforseen pg 521 Bloomsbury Here we see the moment Harry breaks Snapes mind wide open, afterwards Snape is white in the face and panting, clearly effected by something extremely powerful from Harry. In the passage above notice that Harrys thoughts do not reflect that he is concious of the legilimency, it doesn't reflect an attempt by Harry to push Snape out of his mind at all. It does instead seem to reflect Harry concentrating on protecting Sirius like he did at the lake in POA. It reflects IMO Harry's love for Sirius and almost nothing more. From start to finish, Harry is in the memory of the Dementors coming accross the lake, in that POA scene Harry concentrates hard on his happiness about finding Sirius and going to live with Sirius, in OOtP he remembers concentrating, and the next we know he sees Snape clearly and casts protego with dramatic effects. Now note these specific similarities: Harry in POA 'I'm going to live with Sirius' Harry in Occlumency remembers the above scene. Harry in the Atrium of the MOM 'I'll be with Sirius again' Against the Dementors being with Sirius was weak. But against Voldemort, against his two greatest powers Legilimency and Possession 'being with Sirius' is pure gold. As I said before, it is Dumbledore than points out to us *this* is Harry's power of Love. Finding it here in Occlumency with Snape, well, it's a rough diamond, but thats still good right? :D > AyanEva: > Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Just thought of something else. Many of us have been > thinking that Snape's going to help Harry somehow or another in Book > 7, Snape could give him > messages in the form of dreams... Then again, Snape could > just use his Patronus > that we keep getting hints about. But the dream idea is more fun. Valky: I think Snape will use his patronus. I have a specific theory about that too. I think you're right that Harry won't be trusting his dreams again, but OTOH it would be an interesting irony if Harry does get some sort of assistance from Snape through dreams that he ignores because of his experiences in OOtP. AyanEva: > I'm going to assume that if Harry's projecting a strong aura, the > point at which he began to do so is in the DOM battle when he pushes > Voldie out. I can't think that it would've been prior during the > Occlumency lessons, because we would've seen from hint from Snape, I > think. This makes me want to go back and examine the end of OOTP > where Harry and Draco are fighting, Snape comes up and demands to > know what Harry's doing; Harry back-talks Snape and feels like he > (Harry) wants to kill him (Snape). Snape just gives Harry an odd > kind of thoughtful look, rather than getting angry and indignant > like I fully expected him too. I can imagine Snape thinking, "What > the- ? That wasn't me! I can hear his thoughts! Holy crap!" and > completely forgetting to get mad at Harry's audible and mental > comments because he's so sidetracked by this revelation. Valky: Oh I'm buying it AyanEva! Good catch there. My personal theory was that Snape got an inside tip from one of the portraits, like Phineas perhaps, that Harry was possessed by Voldemort in the MOM and that Dumbledore had said it was thinking of Sirius that had saved him from it. That way it was an easy two and two together for Snape who had seen what Harry was capable of when he was thinking of Sirius, in Occlumency. However, I never liked my off-page theory all that much so I am really glad you brought this one up, it shows how Snape could have been alerted to this power growing in Harry without any contrivance needed from outside of the text. Thanks and I agree. > > Valky: > > > Snape is Water/Air > > (Slytherin/Ravenclaw) to save time I'll just paste something from > this> site: http://www.astrology-numerology.com/elements.html > > on the Water/Air combination - > > > > A little bit Snapeish isn't it? > > > > AyanEva: > It's very Snapish. Which leads me to my next inquiry, and this ties > into the Intellect versus Raw Power question that I had above. I > think Harry is Fire/Water. Valky: I am in absolute agreement with you there. Fire/Water are the most passionate people and the ones with the most raw power. Rawness is really at the centre of a Fire/water person due to the inner conflict of these opposing elements. When the fire gets overwhelming in the balance we get steam from this person, because water has no defence against fire, it is wholly affected by its heat, an overbalance of fire in the fire water person can leave them feeling empty and parched dry. This is like Harry who blows steam from his ears and often gets feelings of emptiness. Likewise Fire has no defence against an overbalance of water in this person so when the water gets too weighty in the nature the fire can be all but extinguished, so sometimes this person feels defeated preemptively, which is also like Harry. In good balance the Fire/water person can change tack from power to persuasion on a dime, so to speak. This is one characteristic we are finding out about Harry only recently. The Fire/Water person can run down any obstacle before them as they have unstoppable will and resources for the job. They do however run themselves down quicker than most due to the constantly active nature of these two elements and are often said to be destined for glory rather than longevity, this is very Harry. AyanEva: > I can't find anything on what happens when you > put Fire/Water with Air/Water... Wah. > What I'd like to know is if > the elemental signs of the two will give us any insight on how > feasible it is for them to work together and what sorts of things each > person would bring to the table, should they end up working together > at some point (indirectly or otherwise), that is. Valky: Well the first thing you notice is what they have in common. This is water in Snape and Harrys case. Water is associated with the moon and therefore with the mother. Here we have good signs for the relationships with mothers for both boys, if JKR is placing any weight on these elemental relationships in plotting (and I really do think that is the case) then Snape probably had a good relationship with his mother, but more to the point his relationship with his mother is a *key* to many things in his life as his wateryness would indicate that she had a strong influence on him. We know without doubt the size of Lily's influence on Harry's life and the constancy of her prescence in his life even after her death, so there is a good strong reason to believe that the water influence in Harry is written into the plot. Then we look to see what the two have in contrast with each other. First of these is Snapes water is in oppositin with Harry's fire, now even though Harry has a water element of his own Snape's additional water still counts. The simplest thing that can be gleaned from that is that Snapes emotional side can affect Harry negatively and even make him feel defeated, and we know this is true. On the flipside Harrys energy, his mere prescence, which is lively and positive, can cause Snape to overheat to boiling point, again we know this is true. (As it unfolds the elemental relationships seem very pertinent don't they?) Then we contrast the Fire in Harry with the Air in Snape. From this we can see a strong connection between them which involves Snape providing fuel for Harry's fires. These signs are complimentary in the Snape ---> Harry configuration. This can easily be construed into a scenario of Snape giving aid to Harry. But it can also show how Snape can affect Harry by increasing his fire element. Snape can 'get to' Harry, and Harry will react - we see this in the way Harry always suspects Snape of wrongdoing and in the way Snape can really make Harry furious sometimes. In the Harry --> Snape configuration it shows that Harry is capable of reducing Snape's air element which leaves him very watery and emotional, we see this in POA when Snape loses his cool and is sure Harry is responsible for his lost Order of Merlin. All in all it makes a lot of sense in the way these two characters have interacted so far. These things are all results of one unbalancing the other. But if each are in balance, which could happen and I'll show you how, the interaction would be different. One good way to balance elements is to show a complimentary cycle between them. the cycle between Fire/Water and Air/Water runs like this. The Air lifts the fire (Snape-->Harry), the fire raises steam from the first water(Harry-->Harry), the second water cools the steam (Harry ---> Snape), and some air particles escape back to balance the air (Snape --> Snape). Harry and Snape's resolution will probably follow this cycle. Valky From rh64643 at appstate.edu Tue Oct 25 23:21:26 2005 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:21:26 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142111 Steve/bboyminn: > Just curious how other people envisioned the Black house; row > house, mansion, simply a large house, stone, brick, wood, ...? I see 12 Grimmauld Place as a row house, definitely. I don't know why, but that is the visual I get in my head everytime I read about it. Maybe it is based off of a description in the book, that I can't remember. I think it is probably just because I have never really seen any inidividual homes in London except for the palaces. But I do see the house as very large and palacial. truthbeauty1 From saturniia at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 05:03:41 2005 From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:03:41 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142112 > Potioncat: > So, how does any Wizarding family keep itself secret? I'm not sure if > this house belonged to Tobias who worked in the mill, or if it was a > converted wizarding house that Muggles couldn't see. Saturniia: I think this may be an example of "hiding in plain sight", as much as anything else. All the examples you came up with are, or at least were, situations where the Wizarding home fit the socioeconomic status of the Muggles living around them. The Blacks were in a neighborhood that has (or at least had) upper-class Muggles living around them; their non-magic neighbors would be merchants and bankers, if they weren't titled. The Weasleys live on the outskirts of a village that is probably 90% working class people similar to themselves. The Gaunts are of Slytherin's blood, but not of his status, so their humble shack is near a road where Muggles wouldn't notice their comings and goings, rather than trying to fit in with one specific social status. Snape's probably the exception, since his home seems to fit the socioeconomic status of his Muggle parent rather than his magic parent. Anyway, my point is that the families blend in with the Muggles around them, and the Muggles are less likely to notice a house than a row, a street than a neighborhood, a village than a town or a city. The more discreet the Wizarding world is, the fewer Muggles the government has to obliviate, which saves money and manpower. From mjf152 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 26 08:01:34 2005 From: mjf152 at yahoo.co.uk (Maureen) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:01:34 +0100 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <435F37DE.70303@yahoo.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 142113 bboyminn: > I'm wondering how other people pictured 12 Grimmauld Place and > Grimmauld Square in general. Having lived in North London for a while, not that far north from where I pictured Grimmauld Place to be, I imagined it to be similar to the streets I walked down every day. They were a mixture of terraced houses (row houses?) and semi detached town houses gorgeous in their time, but which had mostly been converted into flats. A bit shabby, a bit run down, a place where people stay for a year or two, rather than plan to live and put down roots. They had originally been painted in light colours, but were now looking a bit grubby, gardens neglected, cracked paving stones.... Some might only be 2 storeys high, others, like the block I lived in, were about 5. Use google image search, and have a look for places like Finsbury Park, Kings Cross, Grays Inn Road, Euston and Pentonville Road. For some reason, Imageshack is throwing up errors at me this morning, or I'd post them myself! Maureen From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 11:17:06 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:17:06 -0000 Subject: Timing: was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > > > Ceridwen: > >snip > > Cissy and Bella go to Spinner's End on what is apparently the same > > night as the PM's unexpected visit. The tie-in with the Dementor > > fog. It seems to follow right on the heels of The Other Minister, > > both in time and in the book... > > Potioncat: *(snip)* > So it reads to me as if chapter two follows closely, if not > immediately after chapter one. The issue being, if it is the same > mist, how long does it take the mist to drift many miles? Ceridwen: I'd think the Dementors are breeding everywhere. (What am I saying? that's exactly what I thought!) > > Potioncat: > I don't think so. The description of the places sound different to > me. Here's the link to what I think the Spinner's End area would look > like: > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/junediamanti/139235.html Ceridwen: I read that, and bookmarked it. I've been looking for just that sort of thing. I know someone on the list (Geoff?) posted something similar, but I'm not sure now where it is. I did find a nice little seaside town called Budleigh Salterton on the internet. Lots of otter references in the area, including the river. A mill in a nearby town, but I think it was a flour mill. Well, that's why one posts one's thoughts - to get more information. Right? Potioncat: > But, as to what Snape is looking for when he looks out the window? *(snip)* > > He says that Narcissa shouldn't speak, then he looks out the > window and tells her that she can speak because he knows the plan. He > saw something that told him it was safe to talk. Ceridwen: I was certain he saw something out the window. Or, someone. Maybe PP, but as you say, why did he leave the house when Snape had interesting guests? That's why I thought it might be Dumbledore and Harry that he saw. Coming, or going. I do think he saw something outside, though, that made him change the way the conversation was going. Potioncat: > Oh, and the list is getting longer. Chapter 5 starts out with two > visitors arriving at the Weasleys...who already have guests. Ceridwen: I forgot about that! Lots of comings and goings in the beginning of the book. Ceridwen. From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 12:19:02 2005 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:19:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0510260519x28899066k3ee296e5969cf158@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142115 Lucianam wrote: > > I think Dumbledore has been Time Travelling all through HBP. That would > explain why Scrimgeour so desperately sought Harry's aid to tell him where > the headmaster was, why Dumbledore always carefully timed his meetings with > Harry. And the reason Dumbledore didn't recognise the memory Harry presented > him after the burial as the wrong one was because he was a 'different > Dumbledore' from the one who had showed Harry the Sluggish memory. Meaning, > 'Dumbledore right after burial' and 'Dumbledore showing Harry Sluggish > memory' each had different amounts of information, and probably 'Dumbledore > showing Harry Sluggish memory' had more info than the 'other' Dumbledore. While I admire the inventiveness of your theories, I don't think time travel, as we know it, could explain Dumbledore's absences. (I agree with Jen that Dumbledore was looking for Horcruxes, specifically trying to locate the cave.) In PoA, Harry and Hermione travel back in time 3 hours, but from everyone else's perspective, they were never missing -- it's as if time stood still while they were gone. Also, I don't see how Dumbledore could collect memories from people without being seen, as he would have had to ask them to extract the memories. (Harry needs cooperation from Slughorn to collect his memory.) We also have not seen time-turners used to move forward -- Harry and Hermione used the time-turner to go backwards, and then simply relived the time until they caught up to their departure time. This is not so great an obstacle, though. The time-turners in the Dept of Mysteries seemed to move time in both directions. However, you'd probably need a differently calibrated time-turner ( e.g., where a turn equalled a day, or even a year) to move back and forth in time. Hermione's time-turner seemed to work well only for same-day travel. <> I'm not sure I could trust JKR to use time-travel consistently with they way it was used in PoA. As for not understanding how time-travel works, I doubt that the WW knows either. If they knew all about it, maybe they wouldn't have a whole room devoted to it in the DoM. And the explanation Hermione gives in PoA, which she claims to have been told when she was given the time-turner, aren't fully consistent with how events actually unfold in the book. Debbie wondering if she should ask Santa for a time-turner this year [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 26 12:36:50 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:36:50 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142116 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > Carol: Snape's speech is that of a cultivated > > and educated man, not one who grew up in a derelict Muggle > > neighborhood. > Sydney: > It's actually Snape's speech that made me picture him as a low- class > boy who reinvinted himself. It's too perfect, to the point of being > stilted-- compare his speech to the upper-class Draco or Sirius. Even > Lucius Malfoy doesn't use such convoluted phraseology. I like the > idea of a mum who married beneath herself in class as well as magic, > but I can still picture young Snape carefull practicing his elocution > with a tape-recorder and the BBC. Marianne: I hadn't thought of that, but I like the idea of Snape reinventing himself, or, at least, taking steps to hide or improve his background to fit with the norms of the people around him that he met at Hogwarts. I think this also fits in with his penchant of referring to himself in the third person, which I commented on earlier in this chapter discussion. Maybe it's time to resurrect the discussion of Insecure!Snape. Marianne From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 26 12:53:36 2005 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:53:36 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142117 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > I hope this is on-topic enough that I can get away with it. I'm > wondering how other people pictured 12 Grimmauld Place and Grimmauld > Square in general. > This is more likely in London. Also, > despite my outward picture of the Black house as a mansion, I get a > very /narrow/ sense of the interior space. Marianne: I pictured Grimmauld Place (the street area including the park that the Advance Guard landed in) as a run-down version of places like Gramercy Park in New York City. It's a small park with local streets bordering its four sides. On the other sides of these streets are what Steve is calling row houses, and what I would call townhouses or brownstones. They may not necessarily share a wall, but the space between them would be minimal, no more than a walkway for access to the back of the building. Certainly not a large enough space for lawns or gardens. I too got a sense of a narrow interior space. I don't recall the characters in 12 GP moving from one room to another without going out into the hallway or walking up a flight of stairs. And quite a bit of action is described as taking place in corridors, which added to my sense of the narrowness of the space. It made me feel claustrophic. And that made me feel even sorrier for Sirius, who, aside from the trip accompanying Harry to the train station, submitted to DD's request that he keep himself imprisoned in that narrow, dark crypt. Ugh! Marianne From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 13:17:12 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051026131713.84702.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142118 > Marianne wrote: > I hadn't thought of that, but I like the idea of > Snape reinventing > himself, or, at least, taking steps to hide or > improve his > background to fit with the norms of the people > around him that he > met at Hogwarts. I think this also fits in with his > penchant of > referring to himself in the third person, which I > commented on > earlier in this chapter discussion. Maybe it's time > to resurrect > the discussion of Insecure!Snape. > I have had similar thoughts as well. Up til OOTP I had seen snape as a pure blood, maybe not as rich as the Malfoys or the Blacks but pure blood. But From the way I read the occumelncy scenes where Harry 'sees' some of Snapes memories and along with what we learn in HP I did revise my theory of his childhood and now peg him as the kind of kid who's ma made a marrage that was a) with a muggle and b) probably one that was not entirely happy. Baised upon the above I figured that our dear professor Snape probably buried as much as could of his past to try and fit in with what arround him i.e: appearing to be a pure blood. laurie __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 13:31:03 2005 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051026133103.92201.qmail@web30707.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142119 > > bboyminn wrote: > > I hope this is on-topic enough that I can get away > with it. I'm > > wondering how other people pictured 12 Grimmauld > Place and > Grimmauld > > Square in general. > > This is more likely in London. Also, > > despite my outward picture of the Black house as a > mansion, I get a > > very /narrow/ sense of the interior space. That is also how I took 12 Grimmauld to be. This very narrow house width wise but being long to make up for the lack of width along with having like mulitple floors (not one or two but more like five levels including the attic and basement) I also figured that magic would play a part in making the rooms be actually bigger than at first glance--kinda like an optical illusion in terms of it SEEMING like a small house but when one enters a room it like opens up and seems bigger (kinda like an expanding ballon). therefore giving the home owner more 'room' to work with. laurie __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From agdisney at msn.com Wed Oct 26 14:17:25 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:17:25 -0000 Subject: Snape-AK-dueling club Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142120 We keep wondering about the AK at the tower. To be more specific, why was it so much *stronger/different* then other AK's that we've seen. Why did DD fly into the air? Reading COS regarding the dueling club, Scholastic pg 190 where Snape & Lockhart are preparing to duel: "Both of them swung their wands above their heads & pointed them at their opponent; Snape cried: "Expelliarmus!" ...Lockhard was blasted off his feet. He flew backward off the stage, smashed into the wall & slid down it to sprawl on the floor." Isn't this what happened to DD (without having a wall behind him)? Maybe this is just the power the Snape is able to achieve when he performs jinxes/curses on someone he despises. I'm finding more clues in COS in this reading then ever before. Thanks for listening. agdisney From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 26 14:45:20 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:45:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: <20051026131713.84702.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142121 Laurie: > I have had similar thoughts as well. Up til OOTP I had > seen snape as a pure blood, maybe not as rich as the > Malfoys or the Blacks but pure blood. But From the way > I read the occumelncy scenes where Harry 'sees' some > of Snapes memories and along with what we learn in HP > I did revise my theory of his childhood and now peg > him as the kind of kid who's ma made a marrage that > was a) with a muggle and b) probably one that was not > entirely happy. > Pippin: Another giveaway is that his speech patterns change when he is talking to Filch and believes he is unobserved (in Book One, where he is having his wounded leg attended to.) It was this contrast that made me think Snape's background was less lofty than it seemed right from the start. I always got a good chuckle out of fan fics set in "Snape Manor." Pippin From dossett at lds.net Wed Oct 26 15:39:11 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:39:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142122 I just had the thought: What if Snape's patronus looks like Dumbledore? I know that all patronuses we've seen so far are animals, but. . .if Snape's best, happiest memory is of Dumbledore accepting him back (I don't think too many will argue with me that Snape doesn't seem to have too many good memories, much like Harry), then perhaps his patronus reflects that fact. It would be incontrovertible evidence of what side he's really on. . . I'm reading posts in the morning, after several days of not enough sleep, so this is probably way off course, but. . . Thanks for listening, Pat From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 26 15:49:47 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:49:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtbthw_mom" wrote: > > I just had the thought: What if Snape's patronus looks like > Dumbledore? I know that all patronuses we've seen so far are animals, > but. . .if Snape's best, happiest memory is of Dumbledore accepting > him back (I don't think too many will argue with me that Snape doesn't > seem to have too many good memories, much like Harry), then perhaps > his patronus reflects that fact. It would be incontrovertible > evidence of what side he's really on. . . > > I'm reading posts in the morning, after several days of not enough > sleep, so this is probably way off course, but. . . > > Thanks for listening, > Pat > someone once said that Dumbledore is a slang or nickname for a bee (bumblebee?). So, I think Snape's patronus is a bee. Or a phoenix. colebiancardi (who hopes we get to see Snape's patronus in book7 and is hoping it is NOT a unicorn - not a shipper ) From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 26 16:16:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:16:55 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew / names (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142124 colebiancardi wrote: Peter is there on Voldemort's orders to > spy on Snape, I believe. If word gets back to LV that Peter is > kicking up a fuss and not wanting to do what Snape asks him to do, I > think that LV will be very displeased with Peter. Peter's job is to > *spy* and listen at doorways. I don't think Peter has ever done > anything on his own, so I think this order came down from LV. Potioncat: My first thought was "Which one is LV punishing?" I finally came to the conclusion that he's punishing both of them. The relationship reminds me of Sirius and Kreacher. On the other hand, (oops) is there any chance at all that Pettigrew is undercover for the Order? >Colebiancardi: > > Ah, I thought it was kinda cute. The sisters have nicks for each > other - it is common. I don't think anyone else calls Narcissa > Cissy - Snape certainly doesn't call her that nor does he call > Bellatrix Bella. He doesn't even call Tonks as Tonks. I think Snape > calls people by the first name - no nicknames allowed here! Potioncat: Thanks goodness I checked canon before sending off an "you're wrong" post. Snape does call her Bellatrix, I was certain it was Bella. But, we've hardly ever seen Snape use first names--only Igor and Draco-- and now we have Narcissa, Bellatrix, and Nymphadora to add to the list. Snapes' getting right friendly. > Potioncat, whose daughter used to be Sissy, but don't call her that now! From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 16:25:43 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:25:43 -0000 Subject: Shipping Snape/Fawkes (was Re: Snape's Patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142125 Pat: > I just had the thought: What if Snape's patronus looks like > Dumbledore? D'oh. It just hit me. What if the mysterious reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is related to Fawkes. Something similar to his words in CoS when he thanks Harry for showing "true loyalty" since nothing else would have called Fawkes to him. So, perhaps when Snape spun that tale of deep remorse, Fawkes reacted in a way that assured Dumbledore that the remorse was genuine? Or perhaps it was Fawkes who brought Snape back to Dumbledore when he told Dumbledore that the Potters and Longbottoms were in danger? Montavilla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 26 16:31:08 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:31:08 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? (was: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: <435D9080.70003@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142126 KJ wrote: > There are a couple of things that bother me about Spinner's End > being Snape's regular residence. neglect" references> > Another thing that bothers me is that Snape is apparently a > friend of Malfoy. ...His speech is elegant and reads much like > Malfoy's manner of speech. This, among other things, is what gave > readers the belief that Snape was a pureblood. > All things considered, I don't know why there is a general idea > that Snape is poverty-stricken. ...While Lupin is described as > patched and threadbare, Snape is not and never has been. We > are only told that he had greying underpants. He has also been > employed reasonably well, one would assume, for 16 years, with > limited expenses. Why would he live in a hovel, when appearances > are so important to him? SSSusan: I enjoyed this alternate view of Spinner's End as *not* necessarily being Snape's childhood home, as well as your questioning the rationale people have used to determine that Snape came from an impoverished background. What intrigued me most, however, were your final few words: "... when appearances are so important to him." I am interested in this precisely because other list members have argued that Snape is NOT at all interested in appearances [the grey underwear, greasy hair, yellowing teeth, all of which *might* indicate a lack of attention to hygiene]. Without taking a position one way or the other myself ;-), I would like to ask KJ (or others who agree with her) if more could be said about why you feel "appearances are so important" to Snape. Siriusly Snapey Susan From muellem at bc.edu Wed Oct 26 16:33:05 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:33:05 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew / names (was Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > colebiancardi wrote: > Peter is there on Voldemort's orders to > > spy on Snape, I believe. If word gets back to LV that Peter is > > kicking up a fuss and not wanting to do what Snape asks him to do, > I > > think that LV will be very displeased with Peter. Peter's job is > to > > *spy* and listen at doorways. I don't think Peter has ever done > > anything on his own, so I think this order came down from LV. > > Potioncat: > My first thought was "Which one is LV punishing?" I finally came to > the conclusion that he's punishing both of them. The relationship > reminds me of Sirius and Kreacher. > colebiancardi: Oh, I have NO doubt that LV is punishing the both of them - but also working them against each other. Voldemort would try to get them at each other's necks, IMHO. So, is Snape=Sirius & Peter=Kreacher? LOL!! I have this image of Peter wearing nothing but a dirty loincloth - it is pretty scary, horrific & sick. > On the other hand, (oops) is there any chance at all that Pettigrew > is undercover for the Order? > > colebiancardi: No. Peter is a Coward with a Capital C. But I do believe his life-debt to Harry will force him to side with Harry at a critical moment. > >Colebiancardi: > > > > > Ah, I thought it was kinda cute. The sisters have nicks for each > > other - it is common. I don't think anyone else calls Narcissa > > Cissy - Snape certainly doesn't call her that nor does he call > > Bellatrix Bella. He doesn't even call Tonks as Tonks. I think > Snape > > calls people by the first name - no nicknames allowed here! > > Potioncat: > Thanks goodness I checked canon before sending off an "you're wrong" > post. Snape does call her Bellatrix, I was certain it was Bella. But, > we've hardly ever seen Snape use first names--only Igor and Draco-- > and now we have Narcissa, Bellatrix, and Nymphadora to add to the > list. Snapes' getting right friendly. > > > colebiancardi: You know, I didn't even re-read to make sure Snape never called Bellatrix Bella. I guess I have read that chapter SO many times now, it is engrained in my memory. I think Snape only calls men by their last names - occasionally, he will call men by their first names. I believe all the women(not students or professors) he calls by their first names. colebiancardi From agdisney at msn.com Wed Oct 26 15:27:47 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:27:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: <20051026131713.84702.qmail@web30709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142128 Marianne wrote: > > I hadn't thought of that, but I like the idea of Snape > > reinventing himself, or, at least, taking steps to hide or > > improve his background to fit with the norms of the people > > around him that he met at Hogwarts. Laurie wrote: > I have had similar thoughts as well. Up til OOTP I had > seen snape as a pure blood, maybe not as rich as the > Malfoys or the Blacks but pure blood. But From the way > I read the occumelncy scenes where Harry 'sees' some > of Snapes memories and along with what we learn in HP > I did revise my theory of his childhood and now peg > him as the kind of kid who's ma made a marrage that > was a) with a muggle and b) probably one that was not > entirely happy. agdisney: I've read where some think that Madam Pince could be Snape's mother. How about a thought that Filch could be his father? It's stated that his father is a muggle - instead maybe a squib. When Snape gets bitten by Fluffy in SS, he goes to Filch for help. Like a child will go to a parent? If DD was trying to keep Snape's parents safe from LV in the event that Snape gets caught, what better place then Hogwarts? Also, they do go together to DD funeral. Can this be why? agdisney From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 26 17:14:03 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:14:03 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142129 > Pippin: > Another giveaway is that his speech patterns change when he is talking to Filch and believes > he is unobserved (in Book One, where he is having his wounded leg attended to.) It was this > contrast that made me think Snape's background was less lofty than it seemed right from the > start. I always got a good chuckle out of fan fics set in "Snape Manor." Potioncat: Ya'll thanks he tawks diff'rent 'round Filch? Erm, excuse me. I just finished talking to my brother back home in South Carolina. Could you be more specific? I just went back to SS/PS and to GoF, but I don't see (hear) the difference. He does swear around Filch, but that may be the editors allowing him to actually use the word when no students are around. And as to AGDisney's question about Filch being his father. Looking at the way Snape speaks to Filch, I think this is nothing more than a faculty member to a lower staff member. I don't see any friendship or family connection at all. Potioncat, who suddenly wants to hear, "What it was, was football." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 17:18:31 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:18:31 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? (was: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142130 SSSusan: > What intrigued me most, however, were your final few words: "... > when appearances are so important to him." I am interested in this > precisely because other list members have argued that Snape is NOT at > all interested in appearances [the grey underwear, greasy hair, > yellowing teeth, all of which *might* indicate a lack of attention to > hygiene]. > > Without taking a position one way or the other myself ;-), I would > like to ask KJ (or others who agree with her) if more could be said > about why you feel "appearances are so important" to Snape. Alla: I would say that it is incredibly important to Snape as to how others PERCEIVE him, not necessarily because of his looks, but because of prestige and power I believe he craves. His overwhelming demeanor with students on the first lesson, his constant referring to himself as Potion Master, while he seems to be the only one in Hogwarts staff who calls himself master, while we know that he is NOT the only one who CAN be called master ( Flitwick could care less, for example). So, what am I trying to say? I don't know if looks per se are important to Snape, but how he perceived by others as a person, I think certainly is. I share Nora's opinion that Snape' exiting the scene in HBP is being made ridiculous on purpose ( I was SO cheering Buckbeak), I believe that maybe at the end of the saga, JKR will make Snape reassess his desire to be perceived as someone influential, powerful, etc. That is if he would be redeemed of course ( If he needs redemption of course, before I get accused of dismissing DD!M Snape ) Just speculating here, of course. Sorry, if I have not answered your question. :-) Alla From maliksthong at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 18:31:56 2005 From: maliksthong at yahoo.com (Chys Lattes) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:31:56 -0000 Subject: Snape-AK-dueling club In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "agdisney" wrote: > > We keep wondering about the AK at the tower. To be more specific, why > was it so much *stronger/different* then other AK's that we've seen. > Why did DD fly into the air? > Reading COS regarding the dueling club, Scholastic pg 190 where Snape & > Lockhart are preparing to duel: "Both of them swung their wands above > their heads & pointed them at their opponent; Snape > cried: "Expelliarmus!" ...Lockhard was blasted off his feet. He flew > backward off the stage, smashed into the wall & slid down it to sprawl > on the floor." Isn't this what happened to DD (without having a wall > behind him)? > Maybe this is just the power the Snape is able to achieve when he > performs jinxes/curses on someone he despises. > I'm finding more clues in COS in this reading then ever before. > Thanks for listening. > > agdisney > Chys: While that's possible that it wasn't really an AK, I don't see what everyone's making such a fuss for. Yes, it could have been something we've seen before in the books, something other than an AK but I tend to not believe that. To me, it was just an AK and he fell off the tower. It was like slow- motion because it was Harry seeing things and describing it in his perspective, the greenlight- the fall, all of it hitting him as such a powerful event because of it being SNAPE and DD, it seemed as if it was slow motion, as if he were suspended- but he wasn't, he was just falling backward. I think it was simply dramatic effect. Chys From xmezumiiru at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 18:57:11 2005 From: xmezumiiru at yahoo.com (An'nai Jiriki) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are appearances important to Snape? (was: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051026185711.35584.qmail@web31702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142132 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > SSSusan: > > > What intrigued me most, however, were your final > few words: "... > > when appearances are so important to him." I am > interested in this > > precisely because other list members have argued > that Snape is NOT > at > > all interested in appearances [the grey underwear, > greasy hair, > > yellowing teeth, all of which *might* indicate a > lack of attention > to > > hygiene]. > > Alla: > > I would say that it is incredibly important to Snape > as to how others > PERCEIVE him, not necessarily because of his looks, > but because of > prestige and power I believe he craves. > SNIP > So, what am I trying to say? I don't know if looks > per se are > important > to Snape, but how he perceived by others as a > person, I think > certainly > is. Chris: I think that the position Snape wants everyone to perceive is exactly what is perceived. Of course, I'm all for the Snape's still good side of the arguements. However, I think Snape didn't care for himself until he was a DE, and then learned very quickly (I don't know how) to become good at hiding. (I think may be due to occulmancy, but I have nothing to prove it with) I have noticed when he is described, words like 'always', 'again','for as long as I can remember', 'for years'. These are words of stagnation. I can see no reason why a man in his late 20s, early 30s until his 40s would choose to stop growing and perpetuate a dark and bleak persona, if it wasn't purposeful. Since most perceptions of reality are made in childhood, the constantness of Snape being dark and menacing would be held over into adulthood in the emotional portions of the brain(this is basic psycology) but have logical portion of his brain say he was not. Snape would then be able to hide in the perception of being dark, but still be perceived as harmless. This perception has lasted at least 16 years of him being a teacher and many more generations of parents would hear these tales (fanciful children's exagerations) and form a harmless picture of him in their minds. Look at the appearance: Clothes: Snape wears the same black clothing so much it is commented on when he changes (wearing green to a Slytherin match). Dark is forboding. Hair: His hair is greasy, which leads people to not get too close. It also never changes, which means hair cuts, washings, and brushings. Smell: For as much as Snape hovers, he is never described as having a smell. I think this is in favor of good hygene. But also, there is no smell to remember. This may also be a no smell to track. Eyes: Snape's eyes are described as 'boring', 'peircing', and 'fathomless black holes'. These are anti-indicators of staring, or that Snape does not hold eye contact unless deliberate. Manner: Snape is not nice, but everytime he has been backed into a corner, he becomes weak, and this is done with an audience. Notice, we never see or hear of Snape handling a Slytherin or personal problem in public. I think that this is indicative of Snape showing only what he wants to show. These are Snape wanting to keep appearances, by not keeping them. Chris "You irritate me. Kill me now." ~Javert, Les Miserables __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 18:44:12 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:44:12 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142133 Christina wrote: > We know that killing splits the soul and that a horcrux is a soul- > part's external form. I hesitate to start picking the math, > because we all know that that isn't JKR's favorite subject, but > here I go anyway-- > > Now, while I don't believe it is strictly stated in canon, I think > it only makes sense that each killing would tear one's soul in > half, so let's run with that for a while. We don't know that: We do know that the first killing (Tom Riddle Senior) was used to make the first Horcrux. However, not every killing is used to make a Horcrux, even though it splits the soul. Voldemort killed much more that 7 times - but maybe only 7 killings were strong enough to use the Horcrux Dark Magic, or maybe he only needed 7 (being an enchanted number). A lot of wizards can poll through an AK, but only a few are able to conjure a Horcrux. Most of the killings just make people loose parts of their souls. VM is less and less human with each killing, because it *ripps* the soul apart, regardless infinte math calculations. expectopatronnie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 19:51:00 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:51:00 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142134 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I hope this is on-topic enough that I can get away with it. I'm > > wondering how other people pictured 12 Grimmauld Place and > > Grimmauld Square in general. This is more likely in London. > > Also, despite my outward picture of the Black house as a mansion, > > I get a very /narrow/ sense of the interior space. > Marianne: > I pictured Grimmauld Place (the street area including the park > ... as a run-down version of places like Gramercy Park in New York > City. It's a small park with local streets bordering its four > sides. On the other sides of these streets are what Steve is > calling row houses, and what I would call townhouses or brownstones. > They may not necessarily share a wall, but the space between them > would be minimal, no more than a walkway for access to the back of > the building. Certainly not a large enough space for lawns or > gardens. > > I too got a sense of a narrow interior space. ... > > Marianne > bbboyminn: Ooooohhhh! Thank you everyone. I'm so glad I asked. You've all given me such lovely images of Grimmauld Square/Grimmauld Place. As I said, my image was greatly influence by some cover artwork. I believe there is a Deluxe boxed version of Order of the Phoenix that has a picture of a dark gloomy mansion on the box cover. This dark gloomy mansion with its implicaition of some degree of grounds sort of stuck with me. But again, the interior descriptions don't really coincide with an expansive mansion. So, I think I'm going to have to revise my exterior mental picture of the Black house. Not that it was really that firmly etched in my mind. Mostly I picture interior spaces when I envision the house. I like Marianne's idea, I think it very closely describes what you are LIKELY to find in London. I just want to make a couple of small changes. I like the idea of brownstone or greystone, but I suspect that over the centuries grand bright brown or grey stone has become nearly charcoal grey (close to black) with centuries of age, soot, and other polution. Next, I like Ceridwen idea and her(?) description. As soon as I read it I was immediately reminded of the houses that the characters of 'Finding Neverland' with Johnny Depp lived in. They were very close to Ceridwen description, and I think they are very likely accurate portrayals of Grimmauld Square, only I don't think they would be quit as posh as the 'Finding Neverland' houses. Those seemed to have a small front lawn/garden with a narrow but walkable fenced space between houses. And a reasonable, but not especially large back gardern/lawn. Just one small problem, which is the idea of white marble or whitewash. That's a little to bright for something as grim as the Black house, or as grim as the Black family mood. Of course, it could be plain stone that was whitewashed originally, then over the centuries, the whitewash wore off, and now we just have centuries aged and discolored plain stone. Anyway, as much as I like the imagry, I'm sticking with brownstone/greystone. I think I might have to rent 'Finding Neverland' again, just to get a look at the houses. Based on my memory, I'm now thinking of houses slightly less posh than the 'Finding Neverland' houses, but not quite so un-posh as to qualify as row houses. I do agree that at one time these were nice city homes for rich country gentlemen, that as the neighborhoods deteriorated were converted to flats. The Black house appears to be consistent with the neighborhood, but I suspect, in its day, was a little more grand than its neighbors. On another note; to some extent I got the impression that the left and right sides of the Black house were not on the same level. That is, one side was offset by about half a story from the other side. Perhaps that is merely an impression I got from the limited information on the bedroom locations. I could explain this by saying that perhaps on the main level is a grand reception room with a very high ceiling. The other house rooms have normal ceiling height. That would account for one side of the building being 'offset' from the other. For the record, in my vision of the house, the staircase in on the right as you face the back of the house. Not that it matters. Another thing I wonder about is the kitchen. If you look at pictures of London houses, the 'lower level' is frequently only half 'submerged'. This allows some windows to the lower level to exist and provide a service/delivery entrance that is separate from the main owner entrance. I'm not sure I have enough information to say that the Black house has this. When Harry describes the basement/kitchen, he says it's dungeon like with rough stone walls and no windows. Yet, this partly underground basement idea is very common. One last note; I've always envisioned Grimmauld Square as something of a cul-de-sac. It's not a square in the middle of a through street, but a three or possible four sided square set off the main road. If a four sided square, then I envision it connected to the main (or semi-main) road by no more than a short city block. If you would like to have some idea of where Grimmauld Square is, here is a link to a map of King's Cross station with a one mile circle around it. One mile is about one hours walking distance. Remember Harry walked to Kings Cross to return to School in OotP. The one mile radius circle is is bordered by Regent's Park in the west, Kentish Town and Lower Holloway in the north, Hoxton in the east, and Holborn and Soho in the south. http://www.homestead.com/BlueMoonMarket/Files/Hogwarts/12grim.jpg This file is quite large; approx. 650kb. You can see several of my other 'Where in the world...' maps in the Links-Speculative Geography section of this group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/links/Speculative_Geograph_000972354701/ My next 'Where in the world...' project is 'Where in the World are Giants'. For the record, it's probably the Ural Mountains of Russia. Thanks to everyone, and remember, I'm not shooting down your vision, merely refining my own. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 26 20:52:33 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:52:33 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: <435F37DE.70303@yahoo.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maureen wrote: > > bboyminn: > > I'm wondering how other people pictured 12 Grimmauld Place and > > Grimmauld Square in general. Maureen: > Having lived in North London for a while, not that far north from where > I pictured Grimmauld Place to be, I imagined it to be similar to the > streets I walked down every day. They were a mixture of terraced houses > (row houses?) and semi detached town houses.... > Some might only be 2 storeys high, others, like the > block I lived in, were about 5. > > Use google image search, and have a look for places like Finsbury > Park, Kings Cross, Grays Inn Road, Euston and Pentonville Road. > For some reason, Imageshack is throwing up errors at me this > morning, or I'd post them myself! Geoff: Speaking as a long time London resident (although a Sarf Lunnoner), I agree that I visualise Grimmauld Place as fading grandeur around Euston/Mornington Crescent/Kings Cross about a mile north of Trafalgar Square. We know from canon that it is at least four floors (for our US friends, ground floor plus first, second and third floors). I also get the feel from the canon description that they are terrace houses. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 21:04:45 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:04:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142136 > >>Potioncat: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 2, Spinner's End. Betsy Hp: So I'm a little late to the party, but I can't resist commenting. Good summary and questions, Potioncat! (FYI: I'll try and avoid well-trodden ground, and I'll be mixing and matching the questions.) > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking > over her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this > trigger happy, or is it just Bella? > > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. > It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used > for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this > room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you > think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? > > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has > the feeling of a padded cell. What does that tell us about > Narcissa? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Betsy Hp: I think Bella's paranoia, the Snape's "padded cell" of a sitting room, and Narcissa's appearance of drowned desperation all go towards a general feeling of claustrophobia. All four characters (including Pettigrew) seem very closed in upon. Which is especially interesting after reading the first chapter. Voldemort seemed to have the upper hand, but these particular Death Eaters (and sympathizers) don't act at all victorious. One would think we were peeping in on the losing side. There's something very "French Resistance circa WWII" about the shadowed streets and clandestine meetings and accusations of treachery being flung around. > 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights > that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the > river's edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this > neighborhood in the late 90's? > > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught > by surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the > location. She calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any > of "our kind" has ever set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think > is going on here? How long do you think Snape has been using this > location? Betsy Hp: I like to think that this is Snape's childhood home. (Actually I was so sure of it I was a bit shocked when Neri called for canon in another post awhile back and I couldn't find any. ) I got the sense, from the books and the wine, that this was Snape's usual home away from Hogwarts, but that he generally didn't leave Hogwarts - hence the somewhat neglected air. I love the idea that Snape was very much working class and that he came to Hogwarts not only a bit weird in his social behaviour, but also with an accent that would have given Sirius Black (possibly James?) another reason to sneer. I also love the image of Snape working very hard to conceal his roots, both the blood and the class, from his more connected classmates. Which would explain why a school age Snape would not invite his peers back to the old homestead anytime soon. As to Narcissa being familiar with the area, I think it speaks towards the current closeness between the Malfoy family and Snape. I think that once Voldemort returned there may have been a few night time visits between Snape and Lucius, and Narcissa may have come along for one or two of them. As an aside: I question whether Eileen Prince took a step down class- wise to marry Tobias Snape. (You know, assuming that Spinner's End tells us something about Tobias Snape .) I get the sense from the Weasleys and the Gaunts that blood is no real indicator of class rank (despite Black and Malfoy propaganda) so the Prince family could have been from the neighborhood. > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. > I'm not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point: > Vampire! Snape or Sir Patrick Spens and his wrecked ship. In > English ballads, nothing good comes after drinking "bluid-red" > wine. 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? > > 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? > > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, > and is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts > have serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the > SNEAK hex in OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape > agreed, but is this just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? > How does this vow compare to magical deals in fairy tales and > myths? Betsy Hp: The wine, the Vow, and the atmosphere all speak to Snape playing a very dangerous game, IMO. It's a noticable contrast to Harry's part in the books, which tend to be more two parts school-prank to one part actual danger. And I think it signals that the books are moving away from that sort of mix into the more grownup game of all out war. So perhaps this could be considered a bit of forshadowing to Harry's leaving school at the end of HBP (though I could well be stretching it). It's also interesting to think about (at least IMO ) who is most hurt in this scene. When I first read the chapter Snape seemed to be in total control. Bellatrix and Narcissa and Pettigrew danced to *his* tune. It was *his* wine the sisters were drinking, in *his* home. (IIRC there are stories about the dangers of drinking or eating anything in a magical being's home.) Snape certainly appeared to be operating with a home field advantage. It all gets turned around by the Vow, but I wonder what Narcissa really gains? Because while Snape is certainly trapped in the Vow, when Dumbledore is killed a method of escape for the Malfoy family seems cut off as well. I wonder how we'll see this scene after book 7? > 9. (Thanks to Carol for this question): Like "The Other > Minister," "Spinner's End" is written from a point of view other > than Harry's. But while "Minister" uses the usual third-person > limited-omniscient narrator, who sees through the eyes of the > Muggle Prime Minister rather than Harry's, "Spinner's End" > dispenses with a point-of-view character altogether. > > How does this change in the point of view affect our reading of > this chapter? Why do you think JKR chose this point of view rather > than letting us into, say, Narcissa's or Bellatrix's mind? How > does having a chapter written from a point of view other than > Harry's affect your reading of HBP or the series itself? Should > JKR have omitted the first two chapters in order to maintain a > Harrycentric view throughout the book? Why or why not? Betsy Hp: I'm not a huge fan of third-person objective (it generally reads a bit cold to me) but it worked for me here. For one, I think it adds to the claustrophobic atmosphere. The reader can't be sure of any of the characters, just as the characters seem so unsure of each other. And there are so many delicious undercurrents running through the room! By their nicknames we're shown that Bella and Cissy really were sisters from an actual family, and yet I totally felt they both were willing to kill the other if pushed to it. There was certainly *some* sort of relationship between Narcissa and Snape, and someone (can't remember who or where) postulated an old heated relationship between Bellatrix and Snape based on their interactions here. And of course there's the Snape/Pettigrew dynamic to play with. Third- person objective keeps all those undercurrents swirling away without limiting or eliminating any of them. Betsy Hp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 26 21:05:35 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:05:35 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bbboyminn: > > Ooooohhhh! Thank you everyone. I'm so glad I asked. You've all given > me such lovely images of Grimmauld Square/Grimmauld Place. > I like Marianne's idea, I think it very closely describes what you are > LIKELY to find in London. I just want to make a couple of small > changes. I like the idea of brownstone or greystone, but I suspect > that over the centuries grand bright brown or grey stone has become > nearly charcoal grey (close to black) with centuries of age, soot, and > other polution. > Just one small problem, which is the idea of white marble or > whitewash. That's a little to bright for something as grim as the > Black house, or as grim as the Black family mood. Of course, it could > be plain stone that was whitewashed originally, then over the > centuries, the whitewash wore off, and now we just have centuries aged > and discolored plain stone. Anyway, as much as I like the imagry, I'm > sticking with brownstone/greystone. > Another thing I wonder about is the kitchen. If you look at pictures > of London houses, the 'lower level' is frequently only half > 'submerged'. This allows some windows to the lower level to exist and > provide a service/delivery entrance that is separate from the main > owner entrance. I'm not sure I have enough information to say that the > Black house has this. When Harry describes the basement/kitchen, he > says it's dungeon like with rough stone walls and no windows. Yet, > this partly underground basement idea is very common. Geoff: Having just read this post after sending my last message (Reminder: write out 100 times "Always check the latest message in the thread before putting foot in mouth"), I must add a few more thoughts. Most older and bigger central London houses were built in the Victorian period and externally were of London brick. They were often built for upper class families and had a basement area accesible from the front via steps where the servants would be found during the day, so there was little or no room for a garden. If you can get hold of a video of the BBC series "Upstairs, Downstairs", this was a long running series (1971-75) set in such a house and chronicling the lives of the wealthy owners (upstairs) and the servants (downstairs). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 21:33:44 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:33:44 -0000 Subject: Snape-AK-dueling club - AK in General In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "agdisney" wrote: > > We keep wondering about the AK at the tower. To be more specific, > why was it so much *stronger/different* then other AK's that we've > seen. > Why did DD fly into the air? > ...edited... > Thanks for listening. > > agdisney bboyminn: I've been trying to avoid this discussion because I don't think we have enough info to resolve it to anyone's satisfaction. However, there is one item I have been dying to point out. Until HBP we have never seen an AK curse. The best we've had is seeing just before the curse, and just after the curse, but never the actual curse. For example, when Cedric was killed, Harry was on his knees vomiting and in pain. He understood immediately what happened and knew what he would see when he opened his eyes, but he never saw the actual curse. The same is true in Harry's visions of his parents murders, we see that he has a general idea of what is happening, but we never see that actual curse. When Voldemort's parents are killed, we see the aftermath, but not the curse. Although, in his dream of the Riddle mansion, we see the curse being cast, and it is said that Frank Bryce crumbled, the scene quickly switches to Harry's dream. Frank Bryce's murder is as close as we come to actually seeing the curse prior to HBP. So, while we have something to work with, I don't think we have enough. Spells don't always act the same. When Harry is practicing stunning on Ron, it seems that Ron just falls over. Yet with other stunning curses we have seen people literally knocked off their feet. When Dumbledore stuns fake!Moody/Crouch, the spell manages to blast through a door and still have enough 'charge' to knock fake!Moody to the floor. --- GoF; Am Ed, PB pg 679 --- There was a blinding flash of red light, and with a great splintering, the door to Moody's office was blasted apart-- Moody was thrown backward onto the office floor. - - - end quote - - - Now in Ron's case, he simply fell over; no indication that he was thrown anywhere. In Moody's case, he is literally thrown backwards off his feet and onto the floor. I don't think it is reasonable to assume our limited knowledge of the AK curse given us a right or enough information to say what is and what is not correct. We see many spells that can simply be cast and have their effect, and many of the same spells that have great physical impact. When Hermione casts the 'full body bind' onto Neville, he simply stiffens and falls over. When Harry cast the same curse against DE's, they are knocked backward off their feet and thrown to the ground. I think the physcial impact is determined by the circumstances and the level of emotions behind the curse. Voldmort's killing of Frank was quite calm and dispassionate. Yet, Snape may well have cast the curse on Dumbledore with great internal emotion to fuel the curse. True, we don't know what degree of emotion Snape was feeling. Though, while outwardly calm, he many have been internally furious at himself for getting into the situation in the first place, and at Dumbledore for, in a sense, forcing Snape into an action that was greatly repugnant to him. Snape may have had to summon a great and tremedous fury within himself to simply bring himself to be able to cast the killing curse on Dumbledore. I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the state of mind and level of emotion behind a curse, can effect the physical aspects of that curse, whether that curse is a simple jinx or an Unforgivable Curse. This may have already been said, as I said, I've been avoiding this apsect of the discussion, but I just felt I had to say it for myself. I don't think we can honestly say, that given the full range of underlying emotions, an AK curse has no physical impact. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 21:49:49 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:49:49 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142139 Saturniia wrote: > I think this may be an example of "hiding in plain sight", as much as anything else. All the examples you came up with are, or at least were, situations where the Wizarding home fit the socioeconomic status of the Muggles living around them. Snape's probably the exception, since his home seems to fit the socioeconomic status of his Muggle parent rather than his magic parent. > > Anyway, my point is that the families blend in with the Muggles around > them, and the Muggles are less likely to notice a house than a row, a > street than a neighborhood, a village than a town or a city. The more > discreet the Wizarding world is, the fewer Muggles the government has > to obliviate, which saves money and manpower. > Carol responds; I can see an adult who can Apparate and Disapparate hiding in plain sight. But how is the child Severus supposed to do that? Did he spend his entire out-of-school life in that dreary bedroom? I can't imagine him wearing Muggle clothes or going to school with Muggle children. At some point in his childhood, he tries to ride a bucking broom (I've always assumed that the broom was hexed because Severus is not a coward and is determined to ride it--a normal broom would have obeyed his commands.) The laughing girl has to be a witch. (Could she be Bellatrix? Or Narcissa?) And as I keep saying, Severus came to Hogwarts at age eleven knowing more hexes than most seventh years. I can't see him coming from a Muggle background or growing up in a Muggle neighborhood. The child knew he was a wizard and took advantage of it, blowing the law against underage magic out of the water. He must have lived in a home in which magic would go undetected. And to me that indicates that he must have lived with the Princes, not with Muggle Tobias, who would never have allowed his young son anywhere near a wand. And it must have been his mother's wand, or that of another adult wizard, that he practiced with. Children don't get their wands until their eleventh birthday when they receive their Hogwarts letter. Either that, or between his eleventh birthday on January 9 and his entry into Hogwarts as a first year on September 1 of the same year, he taught himself a lot of spells using his own wand--and still very much in violation of the Underage Magic law. And if he practiced his hexes at Spinner's End, a Muggle neighborhood, he would also have been violating the Statute of Secrecy. I can't see either young Severus or his mother Eileen "hiding in plain sight," actually, even with Muggle-repelling charms on the house. Wouldn't people notice, at the very least, the absence of a TV antenna and a car in a 1960s house, even if they couldn't tell that the house was lit by candles rather than electricity? Wouldn't they notice a woman or a boy wearing what looked like a priest's cassock or a graduation gown? The neighborhood seems deserted *now* and Snape is clever enough to conceal his presence, but I really don't see how he could have done so as a child. But if he did spend his entire non-Hogwarts childhood in that dreary house, somehow getting away with underage magic, no wonder he looked "pallid," like a plant deprived of light. And no wonder he had no social skills! Carol From Sherry at PebTech.net Wed Oct 26 22:06:24 2005 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:06:24 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142140 > > bbboyminn: > > I suspect > > that over the centuries grand bright brown or grey stone has become > > nearly charcoal grey (close to black) with centuries of age, soot, > and > > other polution. London buildings that were standing in the 1800s were thickly coated with residue from coal smoke when I was there in 1985. (Some had been cleaned up, some hadn't, and the difference was remarkable.) > > Geoff: > > Most older and bigger central London houses were built in the > Victorian period and externally were of London brick. They were often > built for upper class families and had a basement area accesible from > the front via steps where the servants would be found during the day, > so there was little or no room for a garden. > > If you can get hold of a video of the BBC series "Upstairs, > Downstairs", this was a long running series (1971-75) set in such a > house and chronicling the lives of the wealthy owners (upstairs) and > the servants (downstairs). > This site shows speculative cross sections of the UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS house. The picture at the bottom of the page was taken outside the house in London that was used for the exterior shots: http://www.updown.org.uk/house2.htm Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 22:47:01 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:47:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142141 > Marianne: > I hadn't thought of that, but I like the idea of Snape reinventing > himself, or, at least, taking steps to hide or improve his > background to fit with the norms of the people around him that he > met at Hogwarts. I think this also fits in with his penchant of > referring to himself in the third person, which I commented on > earlier in this chapter discussion. Maybe it's time to resurrect > the discussion of Insecure!Snape. > > Marianne Carol responds: If his mother was a pureblood and his father a working-class Muggle (how they met is another question!), he would have had two sets of speech patterns to choose from at an early age, and it's clear which one he chose. Also, of course, we must assume that he did a good deal of reading both to learn all those hexes and to acquire the vocabulary and the ear for style (wit, poetry, etc.) that he has obviously acquired and cultivated. At any rate, we can see by comparing the nerdy little teen!Snape in the Pensieve scene with the adult Sanpe that he has for whatever reason, reshaped his image. He no longer walks around reading notes or books. He's no longer round-shouldered; he seems to have an upright, dominating posture and an intimidating expression (except when he's wearing an inscrutable expression that hides his thoughts and emotions.) Part of this makeover includes a dramatic flair for sweeping out of doorways and a "prowling walk" (SS/PS). And part of it involves, IMO, a mastery of Occlumency (which is what he's doing when he's hiding his thoughts, even when no one present is a Legilimens. As a boy, his only weapons are his intellect and his hexes. But as a man (who of course can't hex his students except in special circumstances like Occlumency lessons and DADA class), he relies on *presence* as well as an actor's keen awareness of facial expressions and tone of voice. He strikes me as a blend, most of the time, of elegance and danger, a man you cross at your peril. And I think he has developed this image in self-defense, in part as a reaction against the humiliation he endured from MWPP (primarily James) and in part to hold his own with the likes of Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Black. It's a mask he hides behind, and it has served him well, both as Head of Slytherin House and as double agent. Only rarely does he let the mask slip, for example, when Harry sees anger and a trace of fear on Snape's face when Snape looked at Draco at the Christmas party in HBP. And the teenager Severus was almost pathetically thin. The man Snape is surprisingly athletic, running across the Hogwarts grounds and duelling Harry effortlessly and without becoming winded. All part, I think, of a cultivated image of authority, sophistication, and power. Carol From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 23:09:13 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:09:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142142 Carol writes: > If his mother was a pureblood and his father a working-class Muggle > (how they met is another question!), he would have had two sets of > speech patterns to choose from at an early age, and it's clear which > one he chose. I'm wondering if Snape's dad left his mum or something-- when he found out Severus had magic? I see Snape as someone profoundly consumed with guilt and shame, and I don't think it's all from the DE's; if he blamed himself for his parent's split that might be a factor. He could have then moved in with the Pinces, whatever they were like, sometime between the ages of fivish and eleven, and got all the curses from them. Maybe in Knockturn Alley? I can't think of anywhere else a child would pick up streetfighting in the Wizarding World, and Knockturn is such a great location I keep hoping JKR will come back to it. Carol: >Also, of course, we must assume that he did a good deal > of reading both to learn all those hexes and to acquire the vocabulary > and the ear for style (wit, poetry, etc.) that he has obviously > acquired and cultivated. > At any rate, we can see by comparing the nerdy little teen!Snape in > the Pensieve scene with the adult Sanpe that he has for whatever > reason, reshaped his image. Because of the bedraggled teen!Snape, whose biting retort to James seemed to consist of nothing but a stream of gutter talk, I would lump all the cultivation-- the accent, the sweeping walk, the better posture (although it still can't be that great, JKR does compare him to a vulture!), to his late teens. Carol wrote: >The man Snape > is surprisingly athletic, running across the Hogwarts grounds and > duelling Harry effortlessly and without becoming winded. Yay, a chance to introduce my Snape theory... well, not a THEORY, more of a notion: Jogging!Snape. I got tired just READING about how he ran from the dungeons to the top of the astronomy tower, took a 30-second kill-Dumbledore breather, then ran all the way back down, out of the castle, across the grounds, then kicked Harry's butt, AND he still had breath to do his "I, the Half-Blood Prince!!" yelling thing. And think of how often JKR describes Snape as RUNNING-- he ran to the forest to meet Quirrel, for example, in Book 1, which always struck me as odd for a guy in his mid-thirties. 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 --Sydney From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 23:11:21 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:11:21 -0000 Subject: Snape-AK-dueling club In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142143 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "agdisney" wrote: > > We keep wondering about the AK at the tower. To be more specific, why > was it so much *stronger/different* then other AK's that we've seen. *snip* Doddiemoemoe here: I loathe to post this theory because I really do not like Snape; however, I have had this thought in the back of my mind for weeks now. I think that while Snape may have said, "Avada Kedavra"...there may have been some silent/nonverbal spellwork going on... I think Snape may have cast a spell to remove the "stopper of death" he gave to DD after DD's hand injury. We know that DD was seeking Snape after drinking that awful potion. We've seen Snape do some healing work on Malfoy after Harry's sectumsempra spell...We know that DD's hand never healed, and that the curse never spread any further than his arm. (physically anyway) This means that Snape may not have cast an unforgivable curse...yet it still leaves him casting the spell that finished DD. I know Snape cast some spell, because it makes absolutely no sense for DD to take a flying leap off the tower when Hogwarts students were in danger. Doddie From ginny343 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 02:26:57 2005 From: ginny343 at yahoo.com (ginny343) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:26:57 -0000 Subject: Snape/Voldemort similarities Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142145 If this has been discussed, I hope someone can give me a message number so I can go back and read it. In GOF Barty Crouch, Jr. talks about how he and Voldemort are alike, mostly based on parentage. Snape is also very like Voldemort in this way. He is the son of a witch and a muggle. A witch, like Voldemort's mother, who was not very attractive. And from the memory we see in OoP, he probably did not have very good feelings about his father. I wonder what became of Snape's parents? Barty Crouch Jr. seemed to feel a bond with his master because of these similarities . . . I wonder if Snape also has his bond. Or uses it to gain Voldemort's trust? I wonder why JKR wrote these characters with similar family history? Ginny From sweety12783 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 20:37:50 2005 From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (sweety12783) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:37:50 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142146 Well I was reading the prophecy again for the hundredth time and thought I might have finally got it. I do not know if this was discussed but I thought that I will give the opinion and see what all of you think about it. I will take it piece by piece. Here is the prophecy in full.... "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies . . ." (Order of the Phoenix, page 841.) Ok everyone knows that "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies . . ." is Harry. That is nothing new. But the next part is the most important, "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . ." I think that the statement means that the one marked as an equal will have to die by the hand of the other in order for LV to be fully mortal (hence "... for neither can live while the other survives...) This would explain why a couple times in JK wrote Harry saying "if he had to die he would make sure that he went down with LV if he could manage it." It also explains why Dumbledore told Harry to tell Ron and Hermione about what was going on. DD knew that Ron and Hermione would not let Harry do this mission by himself but most importantly he knew that if they were to figure out what had to be done and harry sacrifed himself and be killed by LV (making LV fully mortal) then the remaining two could continue and AK Voldemort since Harry will not be able to. And there is something else that has bothered me when reading GOF. Why did DD have a look of triumph when Harry told him about LV taking his blood for the potion in GOF. What if this act forged some kind of connection between the LV and Harry and DD realized that. What if LV actions would eventually cause his doom. LV already has a connection with Harry (the scar) but LV learned he could not use it in MoM when he tried to possess Harry. But using harry blood he was able to touch Harry does that mean that Harry has returned the favor. has harry unknowingly forged some kind magic on LV. Maybe even some kind of ancient magic LV dispises so much. (LV overlooked ancient magic when he killed Lily he could do it again can't he?) I guess all we can do is speculate... Sweety12783 From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 27 02:53:05 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:53:05 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142147 > Carol responds; > I can see an adult who can Apparate and Disapparate hiding in plain > sight. But how is the child Severus supposed to do that? Did he spend > his entire out-of-school life in that dreary bedroom? I can't imagine > him wearing Muggle clothes or going to school with Muggle children. Potioncat: For that matter, how did Sirius and Regulus fit into the neighborhood at 12GP? We could make an argument that the Weasleys managed to keep all their kids close, but they aren't in a city. Carol: And as I keep saying, Severus came to > Hogwarts at age eleven knowing more hexes than most seventh years. I > can't see him coming from a Muggle background or growing up in a > Muggle neighborhood. The child knew he was a wizard and took advantage > of it, blowing the law against underage magic out of the water. Potioncat: As much as we know, Spinner's End can simply be a cheap place Snape rented for this summer. He may never have been here before. He may rent it every summer; or may have bought it; inherited it; or grew up here. It is certainly a wizarding house now. Isn't there a department at the MoM that handles real estate that reverts back to Muggle ownership? If it was his Muggle father's home, it gives us some idea of his background. It fits with the descriptions I gave earlier and it fits with his gray underwear. He appeared to be a poor kid. Carol: He > must have lived in a home in which magic would go undetected. And to > me that indicates that he must have lived with the Princes, not with > Muggle Tobias, who would never have allowed his young son anywhere > near a wand. And it must have been his mother's wand, or that of > another adult wizard, that he practiced with. Potioncat: Let's think about that. Tobias could be the yelling man. The only way I can make that fit would be if Eileen had been expelled from Hogwarts and was unable to use magic. That could be, but it takes such a leap, I wouldn't offer it as a real theory. Tobias could think this magic stuff is just grand, and encourage it. Tobias could walk out or kick them out. Snape could grow up mainly at the Prince home or visit the Prince home often. I think it's very likely he practiced his magic away from his father's Muggle home. >Carol: > I can't see either young Severus or his mother Eileen "hiding in plain > sight," actually, even with Muggle-repelling charms on the house. > Wouldn't people notice, at the very least, the absence of a TV antenna > and a car in a 1960s house, even if they couldn't tell that the house > was lit by candles rather than electricity? Wouldn't they notice a > woman or a boy wearing what looked like a priest's cassock or a > graduation gown? The neighborhood seems deserted *now* and Snape is > clever enough to conceal his presence, but I really don't see how he > could have done so as a child. Potioncat: Well, I would think that a marriage between a Muggle and witch would have some Muggle things and some WW items. So, likely there was a telly and a Floo. I'm sure there was electricity, although Eileen may have used a lot of candles. Severus may have played with a toy wand and a chemistry set. ;-) Eileen must have been comfortable in the Muggle world, or how would she have met Tobias? I would bet young Severus wore Muggle clothes at least part of the time. Sydney wrote: > Because of the bedraggled teen!Snape, whose biting retort to James > seemed to consist of nothing but a stream of gutter talk, I would lump > all the cultivation-- the accent, the sweeping walk, the better > posture (although it still can't be that great, JKR does compare him > to a vulture!), to his late teens. Potioncat: Well, you know, most of us--some of us--thought that perhaps Stan never attended Hogwarts. I've changed my mind on that. My point being, look at his accent! And I'd bet he's a Pureblood. The Weasleys don't speak the same way the Malfoys do. Nor does Seamus. Seamus has an Irish cousin who is a wizard, so I'll bet his Mum has an Irish accent. So for all we know, Eileen Prince came from a poor wizarding family and also had an accent. (Assuming Spinner's End is in Yorkshire.) There tends to be a feeling that Eileen came from a genteel wizarding family, but we don't know that. I hope it was a bit nicer than the Gaunts! (Wonder if Mrs. Gaunt was a Prince?) But what I'm saying is that Sydney is right about the swearing and lack of culture (although Ron often shocks Hermione with his words.) It seems to me, Snape has completely rejected his Muggle heritage. He even wears a nightshirt rather than pajamas...and he's young enough to have worn pajamas as a kid. From the punishments he dishes out, he seems to think there is nothing worse than having to do things without magic. And he rejected a poor background. If his peers included Malfoy and the assorted members of the Black family, he'd have lots of role models. I don't remember if the essay by June included a list of movies that take place near Yorkshire, but I think "Blow Dry" and "Calendar Girls" are two that do. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or if there are others. ("Calendar Girls" doesn't take place in a Mill Town.) Potioncat who does not mean to say that being from Yorkshire is a bad thing, just thinking Spinner's End would not be a good place to be from...no, come to think of it, it would be a very good place to be "from". From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Oct 27 03:09:47 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:09:47 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142149 > expectopatronnie: > A lot of wizards can poll through an AK, Christina: Can they? Who have we actually seen execute a successful AK? Fake!Moody did in GoF, but that was on a spider. We know that Peter and Voldemort have AK-ed somebody. If we assume that the AK on the tower was a real one, then Snape has as well (which I don't find suprising, given the hints we've gotten about his level of skill and power). Look at the battle in the DoM. Harry mentions only two "jets of green light" and we hear *one* attempted AK (the Death Eater never gets the second work out). One would think that the AK spell would be *all* the DE's would be casting. The fact that they didn't suggests to me that casting AK is extremely difficult. In the battle we see the Death Eaters using a purple slashing curse (page 792, twice on 803), a curse that blasted Luna into the air (797), stunning spells (796, 798), a ton of red light (perhaps stunning spells also- 801, 805), tarantallegra (802), and a few instances of Crucio (all quotes from the Scholastic version). These are the baddest of the baddies here- why is anything but AK's being sent around? Casting one requires an extraordinary amount of hatred and sadism. Even after Harry witnesses Bella Lestrange murder Sirius, he *still* only manages to briefly knock Bellatrix off her feet. And that was just in trying *Crucio*. > expectopatronnie: > but only a few are able to conjure a Horcrux. Is there anything that suggests that horcrux-making is more advanced than AK? Dumbledore says that Voldemort has created more horcruxes than anybody else, which shows that there *are* people that create horcruxes. Dumbledore (and Slughorn) insinuate that it's not that people are only able to make one, but that serial killing wizards are rare to begin with. The only advantage in making a horcrux is a little temporary immortality- Slughorn even says that death is usually preferable to the sort of state one lives in after making horcruxes. I think that's enough to explain why all killers don't have horcruxes (just as all people don't drink unicorn blood when they are dying). > expectopatronnie: > VM is less and less human with each killing, because it *ripps* the > soul apart, regardless infinte math calculations. Christina: Which was the central point of my post. With each killing, Voldemort ripped up his soul more and more. Whether removing the broken soul parts and putting them in a horcrux makes the problem worse or not, every time Voldemort killed/made a horcrux, he was left with a smaller portion of intact soul, which is a mathematical problem at heart. The more one rips their soul, the less human one is. The less intact soul one has, the less human one is. The exact mathematics are impossible to know and are irrelevant, but they explain why Voldemort became progressively less human. Killing is quantitative- the damage to one's soul adds up. Christina From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 03:11:13 2005 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:11:13 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142150 Potioncat: > It seems to me, Snape has completely rejected his Muggle heritage. Half-muggle Snape makes me think of the second-generation Pakistani boys I see walking around Whitechapel in robes and beards and little hats, while their parents who were actually BORN in Asia are much more naturalized. He's alienated from both worlds; like a lot of second-generation immigrants, he seems to be going to huge effort to more Authentic than even anybody in the home country is. Potioncat: > I don't remember if the essay by June included a list of movies that > take place near Yorkshire, but I think "Blow Dry" and "Calendar > Girls" are two that do. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong or if > there are others. ("Calendar Girls" doesn't take place in a Mill > Town.) "Billy Eliot"! The kid in it is more Dracoish in looks but he has the weird intensity I guess kid Snape would have had. It's also has great shots of crap row housing like that in Spinner's End. Sydney From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 27 03:18:53 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:18:53 -0000 Subject: Under the influence or not? (Edition discrepancy in "After the Burial" ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142151 > Jen previous: > I think Slughorn knew *exactly* what he was doing that night, and > perhaps guilt and insecurity about his own abilities kept Harry > from understanding the magnitude of the situation. > hg: > I'm not really following this, and I'm eager for you to explain > it. Do you mean the magnitude is asking Slughorn to hand over his > life? And how does Harry's guilt or insecurity factor in to what > transpired? Jen: I'm trying to remember what I meant here . By magnitude, I *was* referring to the danger for Slughorn in giving up the memory. By insecurity about his own abilities, I meant Harry viewed retrieving the memory as an 'errand for Dumbledore' more or less. In his typical self-effacing way he doesn't acknowlede the incredible power he holds, much like Dumbledore, to gather people around him who are willing to put themselves in harm's way just to help him. That thought brought him tremendous guilt in OOTP, both at the DOM when he realized his mistake, and after Sirius died. He views it as a *negative* trait when really it's his greatest power. That's why I'd like to believe Slughorn wasn't ensnared by magical means, because Harry's help has always come through his genuineness. The Felix was a good way to get there, but the moment itself would mean more if Slughorn made a purposeful choice. > hg: > Exactly. > Of course, anybody believing Harry is a Horcrux could take this > and run with it! I'm not sure that I think that way, but the > Sorting Hat had its reasons for suggesting Slytherin House in the > first place, and here we see this side of Harry, probably plainer > than anywhere in the series. If he's under the influence of the > Felix at this point, this aspect of the scene is dramatically > weakened. Jen: I attribute it to the transfer of powers since I don't like the Harrycrux idea :). I mean, it's interesting isn't it? Harry can speak what we find out in HBP is a language passed *genetically* through the Slytherin line! What could that mean? I think all this is connected to the gleam. Harry has a 'bit of Voldemort' inside himself, and Voldemort has a bit of Harry now. Harry seems to be benefitting from his part of the exchange. Voldemort? Not so much. Turns out having Harry's blood and being able to touch him didn't mean a thing--he's now forced to practice Occlumency against him! Whatever caused the hat to question Harry when he said "not Slytherin", we now know the hat is never wrong. So Harry does have Slytherin abilities he needs to acknowledge, and I believe the next step will be thematic--coming to terms with the actual house and/or persons from that house who will prove useful in the coming battle. Realizing they aren't so very different after all. hg: > I also think it's important to note, here, that there is an impact > on Slughorn's character as well. When we learn that he's > essentially handing over his life, we are prepared for any choices > Slughorn might make from here on in, that would seem to depart > from his character as established in the first part of the book. Jen: Very good point. He was scared to give up the memory, "Slughorn said nothing; he looked terrified", but he did it anyway. How very Gryffindor of him . If JKR meant for Slughorn to be under the spell of Felix and he doesn't remember doing it, then I'm not certain we'll see much more from the character. But IF he chose to give that memory of his own free will, then I completely agree with you. Jen From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Oct 27 03:30:28 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:30:28 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sweety12783" wrote: > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . > born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month > dies . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will > have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the > hand of the other for neither can live while the other > survives . . . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will > be born as the seventh month dies . . ." (Order of the Phoenix, page > 841.) > Or what if there is something *missing* from the prophecy? I know it's not likely, since Dumbledore would have realized this, but the sentence "either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live..." seems to be central. What if the sentence should read, "He shall have power the dark lord knows not, And either [he] must die at the hand of the other, or for neither can live while the other survives." In other words, instead of the "either" referring to "either Voldemort or Harry," the "either" was supposed to be the lead in to two situations - either/or. (Anyone understand my gibberish??) For example: He shall have power the dark lord knows not, and either must die at the hand of the other, or must be saved by a red-haired girl (ha ha), for neither can live while the other survives." The biggest hole, of course, is that Dumbledore would have noticed if he missed part of the prophecy. Even though there was a lot of commotion when it happened, I'm sure he's rewatched the whole scene in his Pensieve. Allie (poking holes in her own theory) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 27 04:10:44 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:10:44 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142154 > Valky: > The battle scenes in the D.O.M. are scattered with notes of voices > and footsteps from ambiguous sources. When Luna relates the battle > in the room of planets she tells that she accidentally broke > Ginny's ankle on what appears to be her first spell, and Ron was > hit with something that made him 'go all funny'. Somehow, all > three survived and escaped four DE's attacking them but Luna was > the only one capable of fighting, this is a suspicious set of > circumstances, lending to a theory that they may have had help > from an undisclosed source. Jen: I finally got a chance to re-read the DOM battle and agree this narrow escape was pretty amazing. The room itself may have assisted them in some way, but I'm not certain we would ever hear about it again if so. Another interesting point: When the six kids blew up the prophecy globes and started running for the open door in the room, the one Harry can see because of the 'glittering light of the bell jar', the other three who ran ahead didn't go to that room. Hermione said something about the other three going the wrong way, but that was the only open door, so why? (And I could be confusing the layout of the rooms because I found that entire battle sequence very confusing even after many readings). Valky: > Later in the brain room, Ginny is hit in the face with a spell and > is knocked unconscious, as Harry is running out after Bellatrix > Ginny looks up, now conscious and says "Harry - what -?". Ginny > does seem to have recovered too quickly from the curse cast at her > face, Luna, who was knocked out before her is still unconscious on > the floor, it is possible Ginny has been revived by someone, > though this may have been Dumbledore, there is some reason to > believe that Ginny's surprised reaction to Harry is indicative of > something more specific to do with Harry. Jen: Great, I hope we don't have another edition error here. My Scholastic edition doesn't have Ginny saying anything else after she falls unconcious and before Harry leaves the room. *Sigh* > Jen previous: No, no, Godric's Hollow the night of the murders, of > course!! > Valky: > I'd sure like to see it, but I do wonder if they can travel that > far back. Jen: I decided that would be perfectly awful for Harry to relive Godric's Hollow in person, but then JKR did say she's going to put Harry through some really bad experiences, so....would that qualify as the worst? Watching his parents die, himself being cursed and not able to lift a finger to change anything? No, probably better via the Pensieve or even the recollections of whomever was there that night with Voldemort (speculating, but it seems most of us believe someone was there, right? ). Actually, Dumbledore had his watch at the Dursleys, while waiting for Hagrid to bring Harry, maybe he did a bit of time-traveling the night of or day after Godric's? The watch does seem to tell time in a meaningful way since Dumbledore knew Hagrid was late, but it might have other interesting features. Jen From ayaneva at aol.com Thu Oct 27 04:22:40 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:22:40 -0000 Subject: Shipping Snape/Fawkes (was Re: Snape's Patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > > D'oh. It just hit me. What if the mysterious reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is related to > Fawkes. Something similar to his words in CoS when he thanks Harry for showing "true > loyalty" since nothing else would have called Fawkes to him. > > So, perhaps when Snape spun that tale of deep remorse, Fawkes reacted in a way that > assured Dumbledore that the remorse was genuine? Or perhaps it was Fawkes who > brought Snape back to Dumbledore when he told Dumbledore that the Potters and > Longbottoms were in danger? > > Montavilla Me saying: You know, that's a really good point. I can't remember any canon that speaks of Fawkes' behavior around Snape, but I certainly don't remember Fawkes acting as though he distrusts Snape. I trust that bird's judgment even more than Dumbledore's. I've been wondering where Fawkes flew off to in the end of HBP. The bird's been too important a character (can a bird count as a character?) to just disappear, never to be seen again in Book 7. Perhaps Fawkes will deliver messages between undercover Snape and Harry/Order members? Yup, I'm still stuck on this question of how Snape/Harry communication is going to occur, assuming that it *will* occur, of course... AyanEva > From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 05:13:46 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:13:46 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sweety12783" > wrote: > > > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . . > > born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh > month > > dies . . . and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he > will > > have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at > the > > hand of the other for neither can live while the other > > survives . . . the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord > will > > be born as the seventh month dies . . ." (Order of the Phoenix, > page > > 841.) > > snipity snip snip Doddiemoemoe here: The one power Harry may have that the dark lord knows not...may well be that Harry is a Horcrux... After the MOM battle we know that Voldemort cannot ever possess harry..Harry's power is love...if Voldemort couldnot possess Harry nor could he posses said scar...and I'm inclined to wonder if Voldemort took the Horcrux from Harry during said possession in the MOM during OOP.(Wouldn't it make sirius's death so much more meaningful?!??!? Harry's "love" has kept the Horcrux from influencing him...just as Harry's love kept Voldie-Moldy from possessing him in OOP.. Even if snape had listened to the entire prophecy...Even if snape gave volie his own interpretation...I still believe that Snape heard the entire prophecy...but Snape told Voldie *HIS* (Snape's) own interpretation of it.. I think Snape wholely believes that Harry is a horcrux...hence the Harry-Snape battle at the end of HBP! Snape would shout "leave him" to the other DE's...not due so much to Voldemort's orders...but due to Snape's own suspicions.. Which in my mind leaves Snape's motives somewhat, "suspect". I think that as much as Sulghorn may take a passive role behind the power...that Snape may well take a more active role behind the powers that be.. I'd have to argue that he had more of that "power" behind DD...than he ever would behind Voldie... I have no definitive answers as to what this my mean exactly...but I suspect it may have something to do with the sorting out of the "Snape mystery". Doddie From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 03:27:51 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051027032751.76244.qmail@web34912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142157 CH3ed: Oy, if we are to credit JKR with doing math we might as well have her do physics as well and say that soul particles are quantum particles and that non-locality applies. So as when one of a paired quantum particles spins to the left, the remaining particle will automatically spin to the right simultaneously regardless of how far apart or closed off from information they are. In which case, when LV kills more people and makes more horcruxes all his soul particles automatically adjust to the new number of fragments so that all of them are of equal size and properties. Are we making too much of this? If we take DD's words that LV's magical power does not diminish as his soul becomes more ripped as canon. Isn't it enough to assume that all the horcruxes contain soul fragment with equal magical power and that Harry will have to get rid of all of them before facing a LV that is just as magically powerful as he was when all of his horcruxes were still intact? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Oct 27 05:55:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:55:46 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142158 > > Valky: > > [Ron Ginny and Luna in the planet room] Somehow, all > > three survived and escaped four DE's attacking them but Luna was > > the only one capable of fighting, this is a suspicious set of > > circumstances, lending to a theory that they may have had help > > from an undisclosed source. > > Jen: I finally got a chance to re-read the DOM battle and agree this > narrow escape was pretty amazing. The room itself may have assisted > them in some way, but I'm not certain we would ever hear about it > again if so. Another interesting point: When the six kids blew up > the prophecy globes and started running for the open door in the > room, the one Harry can see because of the 'glittering light of the > bell jar', the other three who ran ahead didn't go to that room. > Hermione said something about the other three going the wrong way, > but that was the only open door, so why? (And I could be confusing > the layout of the rooms because I found that entire battle sequence > very confusing even after many readings). Valky: Oh excellent point Jen! It's really quite strange that they three managed to find a door that we hadn't seen. In my TimeTurning theory this could be the place where the trio/Harry hide themselves while waiting for their opportunity to intercept Sirius. You see, I partly base this theory on an echo of the TT events of POA so I imagine that Harry arrives at the DOM scene un/fortunately earlier than expected he would need to be there, and like POA managed to be involved in more events than he planned to. The Planet room has huge promise, it's a room filled with darkness, Luna tells Harry that for the most part they were just floating around in darkness, it sounds like a good place to hide. I also found the battle scene confusing, if the other three ran ahead, how did Hermione and Harry lose sight of them. It seems like something must have gotten in the way of their view, perhaps the mist from the prophecy orbs would explain that. But what I find strange is that Ron, Ginny and Luna wouldn't try to follow Harry who is clearly their leader and whom they rely upon for guidance, which leads me to another possible part of a TT theory, maybe they *did* follow Harry! In the confusion it's entirely possible that they would have caught a glimpse of TT!Harry's shoes and followed them thinking they were following correct time Harry. Thanks for thhe tip there Jen, I will reread the shelf smashing scene with my most careful eye and see if anything turns up. > > Valky: > > Later in the brain room, Ginny is hit in the face with a spell and > > is knocked unconscious, as Harry is running out after Bellatrix > > Ginny looks up, now conscious and says "Harry - what -?". Ginny > > does seem to have recovered too quickly from the curse cast at her > > face, Luna, who was knocked out before her is still unconscious on > > the floor, it is possible Ginny has been revived by someone, > > though this may have been Dumbledore, there is some reason to > > believe that Ginny's surprised reaction to Harry is indicative of > > something more specific to do with Harry. > > Jen: Great, I hope we don't have another edition error here. My > Scholastic edition doesn't have Ginny saying anything else after she > falls unconcious and before Harry leaves the room. *Sigh* Valky: Ginny is revived when Harry runs back through the brain room from the veil room. It's in the next chapter, so you might not have looked in the correct place. The discrepancy is that while Luna was hit from through the door and Ginny was hit directly in the face from short range Luna is still groaning on the floor while Ginny has clearly been conscious for some time, she is alert and cognitive. Also when reading "Harry - what?" in the context of trying to explain the other strange goings on in the DOM it's hard not to believe that Ginny has seen more than makes common sense to see. > > > Jen previous: No, no, Godric's Hollow the night of the murders, of > > course!! > > > Valky: > > I'd sure like to see it, but I do wonder if they can travel that > > far back. > > Jen: I decided that would be perfectly awful for Harry to relive > Godric's Hollow in person, but then JKR did say she's going to put > Harry through some really bad experiences, so....would that qualify > as the worst? Valky: I agree, that Harry is going to go through some awful stuff before then end is a premise unto itself. Even while we have disagreements around the grounds with whether interview material is canon, I don't think anyone can deny that this is a premise we can assume and count on. OTOH I don't think Godrics Hollow would be entirely the worst, I can think of something pretty awful that I don't want to post, one listee actually wrote to me offlist this week to say that this thing woke her up in a cold sweat. It's *that* awful! though, I'll admit Godrics Hollow would be real torture for Harry. Jen: > Watching his parents die, Valky: This would be te hardest thing to watch I agree. Jen: > himself being cursed and not > able to lift a finger to change anything? Valky: After watching his parents die and doing nothing about it, Harry would be numb to his very heart. I think the worst thing about watching himself be cursed would be knowing that he will survive it. Jen: > No, probably better via > the Pensieve or even the recollections of whomever was there that > night with Voldemort (speculating, but it seems most of us believe > someone was there, right? ). Valky: I would like to see Harry use the pensieve, just because, and I am dead keen to see Hermione in one making deductions and giving her perspective on a memory. I always liked the penseive, so I hope that Harry and Hermione manage to get a memory out of Harry for studying in book seven. The Godrics Hollow memory does seem the best candidate for that IMO. > Jen > > Actually, Dumbledore had his watch at the Dursleys, while waiting > for Hagrid to bring Harry, maybe he did a bit of time-traveling the > night of or day after Godric's? The watch does seem to tell time in > a meaningful way since Dumbledore knew Hagrid was late, but it might > have other interesting features. Valky: Well now that is a possibility, wouldn't it be strange if Harry and Hermione were wandering around his Godrics Hollow memory and saw Dumbledore standing outside the window trying to learn what had gone on there. How strange if we found out in the end that he fourth man was Dumbledore! Would Harry be outraged that Dumbledore hadn't saved his parents? HA! Would we?! Valky From ayaneva at aol.com Thu Oct 27 06:15:46 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:15:46 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry's Power/Mindlock and Fire/Air/Water: WAS Fire Air and Water In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142159 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Valky: > Well yes, and no. Yes because I think Snape is definitely curious > about the power that Harry can wield in the sense that he hasn't > encountered it before, recognises that it has ultimate? potential from > a very objective viewpoint, and is the lifelong learning type of > person who is *always* looking for a new levels to explore in magic. Me (AyanEva) says: See, I've always thought that there must be some *other* reason that Snape dislikes Harry so much, besides the whole "looks like his dad" thing. I think part of it is the circumstances surrounding his "Chosen One" status, but the "observing power" idea that you just mentioned has me thinking that perhaps *that* plays into the dislike or apparent dislike some sort of way. I don't know how, but... 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? But then that completely contradicts my "strong aura manifested itself at the DOM" idea. Meh. Let's just go with this particular train of thought for now and ignore the contradiction. Since Harry's not a fully trained wizard, he couldn't just cast some ridiculously complicated spell, so you'd only be able to get some measure of ability from accidental magic. I don't think you could tell accurately by how well someone does in, say, Charms or something. We've seen that Harry has issues concentrating (ADD!Harry), and so his schoolwork doesn't provide a good measure of what he can do. Right, so this next bit sounds straight out of Power Rangers or something (with all the "power level talk"), but if Harry's raw power is tied into his emotions, then riling him up could be a way of measuring his power level in relation to level of emotion experienced. This goes hand in hand with observing Harry via looooong and frequent detentions. During which Snape always does something, or makes Harry do something, emotionally upsetting. Drifting OT here... In regards to why Harry's so powerful, man, I'd *love* to know Snape's theories on Harry's potential power. *I* can't think of any theories for it. I mean, I suppose it *could* be a transfer of some of Voldie's power, since we see that Voldie was very powerful as a child. But I'm not satisfied with that answer. It seems to me if he got some of Voldie's powers, that wouldn't make him *more* powerful, it would just give him a wider array of abilities. I'm making a distinction between the number of things you can do and how much power you can put behind it. Speaking parseltongue isn't raw power, it's an ability. The side-along apparition was raw power, IMO because it required a heck of a lot of energy to do. I think it's that ancient-magic-by-Lilly thing that gives Harry his excessive power, NOT the transfer of *abilities* (abilities rather than power) from Voldie. >Valky: > And No because I don't think the character of Snape is intended to > fulfill any role of draining something from someone, that would be > Voldemort's territory, I would classify Snape far more passively than > that. So in that sense he is not feeding in a literal way but rather > observing, very keenly. Me (AyanEva) again: Vampire!Snape rears it's head (only it's the emotion-feeding Vampire). Yes, I'm joking, and no I don't believe that. Not anymore anyway... *grin* Though, I'm still curious about all of the bat references. I think I used a crappy phrase in "feeding (or draining, whichever one it was)", rather than "draining," what I'm suggesting would be more along the lines of...mmmm, borrowing? Like if you tap into your neighbors cable. You're not "draining" their cable, just...sharing it, but not affecting the quality of their transmission any. I don't know how that idea works anywhere, but if there's a mental connection it could work later on. Like sharing power, or maybe even borrowing it all, somehow for whatever reason. Like, Harry needs some extra oomph to beat Voldie, and through the sharing connection thing, Snape lends him some power. I think my idea is quickly becoming ridiculous. >Valky: >But > Harry does not have anything when it comes to attacking in anger, he > gives away his moves, he does most of the damage to himself rather > than the person he's attacking, and he loses focus and gets attacked > from behind when we know he is capable of sensing rear attack quite > often. > IMO the mindlock theory makes sense in terms of Harry's lack of focus, Me: Wait, I'm confused about how the mindlock and lack of focus relate. >Valky: > but otherwise the strongest theory here is his loud aura > transmissions. Perhaps even getting louder when he chases Snape > because of his emotions there. OTOH it is this scene that most > strongly pushes me to blend the three theories into a unified one, > where Harry's loud aura is a result of tapping into his power in an > uncontrolled way, his sympathies crossed with his determination to > never forgive Snape are causing fuzziness in it around Snape which has > them mindlocked in a sense but only through Harry's own intentions, > and finally that there was a focussed use of Harry's love power in >the Occlumency lessons which demonstrates the correct control of it : Me: Ok, you lost me. Can you rephrase this? I'm not sure what the theory is. Sorry, apparently I'm really slow on the uptake tonight! >Valky: > As I said before, it is Dumbledore than points out to us *this* is > Harry's power of Love. Finding it here in Occlumency with Snape, well, > it's a rough diamond, but thats still good right? :D Me: I like this interpretation of the love power concept; it makes it resemble velveeta a little less. > Valky: > But if each are in balance, which could happen > and I'll show you how, the interaction would be different. > > One good way to balance elements is to show a complimentary cycle > between them. the cycle between Fire/Water and Air/Water runs like > this. The Air lifts the fire (Snape-->Harry), the fire raises steam > from the first water(Harry-->Harry), the second water cools the steam > (Harry ---> Snape), and some air particles escape back to balance the > air (Snape --> Snape). Harry and Snape's resolution will probably > follow this cycle. Me: Ok, I understood how Harry/Snape unbalance each other. But I'm lost again on the bit above about how Harry/Snape balance. Geez, I'm sorry. I'm really dumb at the moment or something! AyanEva (maybe someone's fuzzing up her mind) From kjones at telus.net Thu Oct 27 06:31:35 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:31:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43607447.20505@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 142160 cubfanbudwoman wrote: > Without taking a position one way or the other myself ;-), I would > like to ask KJ (or others who agree with her) if more could be said > about why you feel "appearances are so important" to Snape. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan KJ writes: This one of the hardest things to explain. So much of the Snape character is neither one nor the other. One interesting thing in HBP is that when the sisters arrived at Snape's house, his hair was described as "long black hair parted in curtains around a sallow face". This is the only time that his hair is not specifically described as greasy. I think his manners and behaviour were summed up quite nicely in Carol's post. He can apparently be quite debonair when the situation calls for it. How can he be shown as so relaxed and confident, with greasy hair and yellow teeth? Is it all Harry's perception or is it his Hogwarts persona? While Snape seems to resent anything which ridicules him or lessens his authority, like Gilderoy, Neville's boggart, or the vulture hat in the Christmas cracker, he also runs out to protect the school in his night shirt. So much for appearances. I would expect Snape to get dressed so he wasn't forced to confiscate cartoons of himself in his night wear. As well, he seems to harbour no particular resentment when the Trio knocked him out in the shack. He defended them admirably to Fudge. Why? In the first book we see him do wandless magic to protect Harry from Quirrel. Perhaps he was forced into it by circumstances. We don't see it again. Only Dumbledore regularly performs wandless magic. We see Minerva perform more intricate magic than Snape. We see some of his strength in conjuring 4 stretchers out of thin air in PoA, but it is not until HBP that we begin to see what he can do. He was a young wizard when Voldemort fell and has undoubtedly learned a great deal in the past 16 years. He is obviously a skilled legilimens, just as obviously a very skilled occlumens. This gives him a huge advantage in a duel as we see with Harry. He also has the ability to look at a situation in a very few seconds and make a decision. He would appear to be the only member of the order, excepting Moody, perhaps, who actually has the ability to cast an AK. Apparently he has been training hard. For what? It seems to me that he is forced to play a certain role while he is at Hogwarts, and another role when he is in the company of the Death Eaters. If this is the case, then, *appearances* are everything to him, just not in the way one would first think. KJ From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 11:55:03 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:55:03 -0000 Subject: Shipping Snape/Fawkes (was Re: Snape's Patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142161 "AyanEva": > --- I can't remember any canon that > speaks of Fawkes' behavior around Snape, but I certainly don't > remember Fawkes acting as though he distrusts Snape. I trust that > bird's judgment even more than Dumbledore's. > > I've been wondering where Fawkes flew off to in the end of HBP. The > bird's been too important a character (can a bird count as a > character?) to just disappear, never to be seen again in Book 7. Finwitch: I'd sorely miss Fawkes, too... He's a phoenix. He can't be simply gone, because even a dead phoenix just flames up and reborns... As of Fawkes trusting or distrusting Snape - I don't recall any information about him near Snape. Considering the magical quality of a phoenix-song... I'd trust Fawkes' judgement, too. And indeed, where did Fawkes go? When Dumbledore told Harry about the qualities of a phoenix, the word faithful had the emphasis. What would an extremely faitful pet do when his master dies? And where WAS Fawkes as Harry got the letter by an owl (and doubted it was genuine, that it never was from Dumbledore... he'd have doubted nothing if Fawkes had delivered it) and all those several invitations via students later on? Why the big apparition business if Fawkes could have carried them? Where was Fawkes when the death-spell hit Dumbledore? I really missed Fawkes in HBP. Really there was merely a few mentions of Fawkes sitting on his perch and the song of grief - and then the odd white flame and a phoenix raising from that "ash" by Dumbledore's tomb. Maybe that was Fawkes - or did old Albus turn into a phoenix? I do wish Fawkes will be back - possibly as Harry's pet as Harry still remains loyal to Dumbledore... if true loyalty could call Fawkes in CoS, maybe true loyalty can do so now as well? After Fawkes is over his grief, anyway. Few wizards can tame a phoenix, but whatever else it's said that 'few wizards' can do, it's something Harry's been capable of - like parseltongue or summoning corporeal patronus in the face of two dementors, ability to solve riddles (logic) (as in the SPYDER, Hermione wasn't helping him there), ability to say 'Voldemort' without fear, ability to shake off Imperius - he even has some sort of Seeing abilities per his dreams, and the one time he was seriously making a prediction to Ron: 'you will suffer but be very happy.' I think that came true when Ron regained 'Scabbers'. He must have been very happy to regain a pet he thought had died - but also suffering because the rat was biting him! Finwitch From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 12:32:10 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:32:10 -0000 Subject: GH Revisited (was Re: How important is the right sluggish memory?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142162 (monsterous snipping) > Valky: > Well now that is a possibility, wouldn't it be strange if Harry and > Hermione were wandering around his Godrics Hollow memory and saw > Dumbledore standing outside the window trying to learn what had gone > on there. How strange if we found out in the end that he fourth man > was Dumbledore! Would Harry be outraged that Dumbledore hadn't saved > his parents? HA! Would we?! Ginger: Oh, Valky. After reading this I had an interesting thought. Suppose Harry travelled back in time to GH, after being solidly convinced not to interfere, only to observe. He taked his IC with him, hides, and views the events. After it is all over, DD steps out of a closet and begins to leave (yes I know the house was destroyed, but the closet was intact for the purposes of this exercise- grant me that much?). Harry is outraged and calls out to him. DD stops, turns and listens as Harry berates him for allowing his parents to die. DD asks why Harry didn't do anything himself, to which Harry replies that he has time- turned to be there and realizes he has broken the "you must not be seen" rule. DD smiles and explains that he didn't interfere as he is there under the same circumstances as Harry. He, too, is time-turning, but from 3 hours in the future. He has left Harry in the care of Hagrid and has time-turned to GH to find out what happened so he will know what to do with baby Harry. Harry realizes this is a golden opertunity to have a final conversation with DD and to warn him of everything that will happen in our stories, but before he can begin, DD warns him that anything Harry tells him will be considered interference with time. Harry blurts out "But Snape- you mustn't trust him!" to which DD replies, "Professor Snape, Harry, and I trust him completely, and someday, so shall you." With that, DD disapperates. Ok, end of my little fantasy, but you can see all the plot bunnies multiplying here. Harry could time-turn back further and try again to talk to DD. He could write DD a note and time-turn back and leave it in DD's office. He could disguise himself as a seer, time-turn back and tell DD he has an important prophecy for him. The possibilities are endless. And the way they could effect DD and how he seemed semi-omnicient would be equally infinite. If it happens this way, I call dibs on the chapter summary. Ginger, whose mind just blew from overload. It was an Evil Overload. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 27 13:23:19 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:23:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142163 - > Potioncat: > Ya'll thanks he tawks diff'rent 'round Filch? > > Erm, excuse me. I just finished talking to my brother back home in > South Carolina. > > Could you be more specific? I just went back to SS/PS and to GoF, but > I don't see (hear) the difference. He does swear around Filch, but > that may be the editors allowing him to actually use the word when no > students are around. Oi'm not tryin' ter turn 'im inter Stan Shunpike, who also knows two vocal styles. But there is a coarseness to 'Blasted thing. How are you supposed to keep your eyes on all three heads at once' , 'Just shove a bezoar down their throats' ' a stream of mixed swear words and hexes' and 'I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her' which is quite different from the rhetorical flourishes of 'the subtle science and exact art' or 'the magical defense of the mind against external penetration' and makes me think that Snape's parents didn't habitually express themselves in double alliterative phrases. He does speak in his high-falutin' style 'I seal my office with a spell' to Filch in GoF, but does he really think they are alone? He's looking for a prowler already, he knows all about Harry's invisibility cloak, Filch has the egg, and of course Snape would know where the trick step is. If Filch *is* Snape's father, that would mean that the hook-nosed man in the pensieve is someone else. We do see Filch standing next to Irma Pince at Dumbledore's funeral, and then there's that bit about it's classified information whether any of the teachers are married. Hmmm. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Oct 27 13:56:51 2005 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:56:51 -0000 Subject: Question 7 (was:CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End ) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0510241601r25f5a912x860ce7e44806c898@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142164 --- elfundeb wrote: > > Potioncat wrote: > [snip excellent summary] > > 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? > Debbie: > It confirmed many suspicions, but there are statements that remind > us that we are not to take all statements at face value. For > example, Snape's claim of credit for Sirius Black (Dumbledore had > previously blamed Kreacher). What came to my mind was how > carefully Snape must have rehearsed his story, and how long > Bellatrix has been waiting to interrogate Snape. And as I wrote > yesterday on another thread, I think Snape rather enjoys playing > this role and he could not resist taking Bella on, and he > especially relished telling Bella that he knew Draco's task > (whether or not it was true). > For what it's worth, I surmised almost immediately what Draco's > task was and read the rest of the book in anticipation of the > events on the tower. ~aussie writes:~ Snape reminds me of those middle managers that are willing to take credit for any pluses, and shift the blame for failures. The most blatant example in earlier books (POA Chap 21) "...by thunder, it was lucky you were there, Snape...." "Thank you, Minister." "Order of Merlin, Second Class, I'd say. First Class, if I can wangle it!" "Thank you very much indeed, Minister." - for capturing Black and rescuing Harry and Hermione from the dementors and a rogue werewolf. - Very brave of Snape, wasn't it. He is a very accomplished liar. He had to be to servive as a DE; an ex-DE; an OOTP; and a spy for, well, whoever offers the best deal to reach his goals. He mentioned how Karkoroff had a whole year to plan his escape instead of going to the grave yard. Likewise, Snape had all year to work out excuses for the DE. He also has another year to work out what he would do when faced with the UV fulfillment. Yes, you have to keep your eye on old Severus. JKR has a few more suprises left with his character. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 27 14:18:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:18:36 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?SW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gKHdhcyBSZTogRHVtYmxl?= =?iso-8859-1?B?ZG9yZSdzICLDouKCrMWTcGVhY2VmdWwgZXhwcmVz?= =?iso-8859-1?B?c2lvbsOi4oKswj8/?= In-Reply-To: <1fe.ce9d31a.308d4c6c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > Neri: > ...the inconsistency is > only with Dumbledore's very vague and hole-riddled explanations that > everybody acted "at once". Only if everybody acted at once, how come > Harry is having a public collapse, breaks into Umbridge's office, > reports a mind attack by Voldemort, taken at wand point to the > Forbidden Forest, closely saved from a herd of rampaging centaurs by > a rampaging giant, takes a flight all the way from Scotland to London > on invisible horses, enters a breached and deserted Ministry, tours > the wonders of the Department of Mystery and has a chat with a bunch > of Death Eaters, and he still beats the Order to the mark? Calling > this a "math-based inconsistency" is a bit of an understatement. > > Julie: > Okay, how about general inconsistencies ;-) One thing to remember is > that JKR has stated she wrote the end of OotP in a hurry, to get it out > for publication on time. So this would be one place where inconsistencies > might logically pop up, especially as *so much* was going on. It's not the > least inconceivable to me that JKR would have lost track of the timing, > or that the editors, considering the size and complexity of OotP, would > not have done the math here (they were under time restraints, while we > have plenty of time to fine-tooth comb through the books). Pippin: This seems to be another bit of confusion turning itself into canon. AFAIK, it was GoF that had a publication deadline and had to be written hurriedly. No publication date was announced for OOP until it had been turned in, IIRC. JKR did say she wrote it while very pregnant, but I don't recall her saying that she was in a hurry. Can you point me to the interview? Dumbledore doesn't say everyone acted at once. He says Snape acted at once when he grew worried that Harry hadn't come back from the forest and the Order acted at once when they got Snape's message. Snape doesn't get worried at once and that, I agree, is the source of the ambiguity. But I can imagine him confidently expecting Harry to turn up sans Umbridge, and then getting worried after an hour or so. It doesn't fit your hypothetical timeline, but that's what I imagine Snape was doing once he'd finished patching up his hexed Slytherins and trying to get a coherent story out of them. Knowing he was now anti-Umbridge would they tell him that she'd admitted to sending dementors after Harry or tried to use an unforgivable? I don't think so. It's obvious to us that this has to be a trap and Voldemort's plans must be near completion because there are so few pages left -- but Snape can't glance out and see how much is sitting in the reader's right hand. From Snape's pov, there's nothing to indicate that this vision more than any of the dozens of others is a trap. Harry has had other visions by daylight, he's had others that Snape knows weren't true, (though Harry never seems really to have grasped that Voldemort wasn't actually in the DoM when he dreamed of it.) It's true that occlumency lessons have failed, but this does not leave Harry any *more* vulnerable than he was when they began. Neri (140297): She can also ask her editors to supply her with the numbers. It's their job, and I suspect they know how to use Google even if she doesn't. Pippin: I don't think editors of fiction do that kind of fact-checking these days. They might notice if your character has green eyes in chapter one and blue eyes in chapter seven, but that's about it. They don't seem to mind the way September 1 falls on a Sunday in successive years. JKR might ask anyone to look it up for her, but why would she if it wasn't important? Neri : Can you now explain to me the metaphoric value of "the sun was falling towards the top of the trees in the Forbidden Forest" in words that are almost identical to those in PoA, *except* for the difference in the sun's position showing an earlier hour, which is corroborated by the different relation to dinnertime, also noted in close proximity in both books? Pippin: The general idea is that night is falling, and that's why Buckbeak's execution is at sunset in PoA, but in OOP there had to be light enough when Harry and Hermione took Umbridge into the forest that Ron et al could have seen which path they took. "We saw you heading into the forest out of the window and followed." Neri: Another example: you'll note that the second time Snape contacted HQ, Dumbledore specifically notes that there were several Order members there, but the *first* time he contacted HQ only Sirius is mentioned. Was Sirius alone in HQ then? It would indeed be logical for Voldy to start the operation only after Kreahcher reports that he and Sirius are alone in the house. This would enable Kreacher to safely lie to Harry in the fire while Sirius is upstairs tending to Buckbeak. And conveniently Dumbledore never had a chance to talk with Sirius before Sirius was killed. This means that Dumbledore might be depending only on Snape's testimony that he indeed contacted to find if Sirius is in HQ. Maybe Snape never did, but Sirius is conveniently unable to tell us that. Pippin: Er, then how did Dumbledore know that Snape had contacted the Order at all? Snape hasn't had a chance to report but the Order members at the Ministry have. Or is this another hypothetical conversation between Snape and Dumbledore by means of the hypothetical instant communications device that would cause all sorts of plot holes if it existed? (The thing needs an acronym. But in the glory days of TBAY, it would have earned its inventor a yellow flag for being non-canonical magic.) You've said it would be incomprehensibly bad generalship for Dumbledore to go off without any means of communicating with the rest of the Order yet we saw him do just that in HBP. I guess he's just a bad general then, or rather, his success is due to his uncompromising stand against Voldemort and his ability to unite highly disparate people in a common cause, rather than his knowledge of military procedures. Anyway, Snape would have to know that Sirius was going to be killed and be certain that he hadn't talked to any other order members before he died. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 27 15:09:58 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:09:58 -0000 Subject: Prince/Snape family (Re: Snape's Speech patterns) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142166 Pippin: > If Filch *is* Snape's father, that would mean that the hook-nosed > man in the pensieve is someone else. We do see Filch standing next > to Irma Pince at Dumbledore's funeral, and then there's that bit > about it's classified information whether any of the teachers are > married. Hmmm. Jen: How 'bout Snape's stepfather? They fell in love at Hogwarts when Irma entered the Dumbeldore Witness Protection Program. Which also moves Filch up in the standings as the one to do magic late in life when Irma is threatened. I've read Carol's suggestion the hook-nosed man was Eileen's father. I found that an interesting possibility, given the scene we witnessed between Mr. Gaunt and Merope when he discovered she was sitting up nights watching that Muggle Riddle drive by. Was the hook- nosed man yelling at the cowering woman in the Pensieve also a father enraged by his pure-blood daughter falling in love with a Muggle? The evidence against this is we now have Tobias in canon, but no mention of Mr. Prince. So hook-nosed Tobias seems likely unless JKR wants to keep connecting Riddle's and Snape's backgrounds for plot reasons. Tobias would have met an untimely death, but Snape's quick turn to Dumbledore's side was soon enough to save his mother (is my speculation, since LOLLIPOPS doesn't do it for me ). Jen From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 14:14:30 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:14:30 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142167 Carol: > > I can't see either young Severus or his mother Eileen "hiding in > > plain sight," actually, even with Muggle-repelling charms on the > > house. Wouldn't people notice, at the very least, the absence of > > a TV antenna and a car in a 1960s house, even if they couldn't > > tell that the house was lit by candles rather than electricity? > > Wouldn't they notice a woman or a boy wearing what looked like a > > priest's cassock or a graduation gown? Potioncat responded: > Well, I would think that a marriage between a Muggle and witch > would have some Muggle things and some WW items. So, likely there > was a telly and a Floo. I'm sure there was electricity, although > Eileen may have used a lot of candles. Severus may have played with > a toy wand and a chemistry set. ;-) Eileen must have been > comfortable in the Muggle world, or how would she have met Tobias? > I would bet young Severus wore Muggle clothes at least part of the > time. > > It seems to me, Snape has completely rejected his Muggle heritage. Lyra now: Well, Potioncat, you've touched on a topic that really fascinates me, one that I've never seen anyone write about: How does a wizard/muggle marriage or family life work? And I tend to agree with you, that there must be some sort of compromise-mixture of the two ways of doing things. In the first place, I think all us muggles on this list would agree that giving up electricity, TV and the other "magic" we depend on is too much to ask. And it seems to me it'd be much easier for a wizard to adjust to flipping on a light switch (Arthur Weasley aside) and using an electric oven than depriving a muggle of basic necessities because he/she can't use a wand. So I think that Eileen and Tobias must have had a household that combined some of each one's way of doing things (assuming they did, in fact, remain married). I can also envision Severus growing up in a muggle neighborhood, being the local weird kid, with all the teasing that that entails. I would expect he hoped all that would stop when he got to Hogwarts, (and then he found out rich, pureblood kids could be just as nasty as poor muggle kids). In fact, I can see him learning/inventing his curses as a way to get back at his young tormenters vicariously, even if he couldn't actually use the curses on them because of the Secrecy Act (which Carol points out upthread). Where'd he practice these curses to begin with? Well, possibly while visiting the Prince relatives, but I'm not convinced a witch can't keep doing magic in her own home, even if it's in a muggle neighborhood, as long as she is discreet about it. Since the MoM apparently keeps records of where all wizards are living (don't we get that idea in OOTP, at the hearing, when they say they don't have a record of any wizards in Little Whinging and Mrs. Figg says they wouldn't have a record of her because she's a squib?) they would have a record of Eileen Prince Snape wherever she lived. If Sevvie was practicing curses at night after Mom had gone to bed, the MoM wouldn't realize it was underage magic (based on the Weasley twins experience, anyway) as long as he didn't do it out in the street where muggles could see. Eventually, as Potioncat notes, Snape totally rejects the muggle part of his heritage, not because he never was exposed to muggle ways of doing things, but because wizarding appealed to him more, for reasons that could range from the powerful feeling he got from doing magic to the fact that he found acceptance among the Slytherins, who probably found him just as strange and nerdy as everyone else, but who also appreciated his ability to create curses. Eek, I hope I haven't just written a very long "I agree" without adding anything. Lyra From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 17:08:37 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:08:37 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lyraofjordan" wrote: > > Lyra now: > Well, Potioncat, you've touched on a topic that really fascinates > me, one that I've never seen anyone write about: How does a > wizard/muggle marriage or family life work? And I tend to agree > with you, that there must be some sort of compromise-mixture of > the two ways of doing things. > lealess: I am wondering if witch-Muggle marriages *DO* work. The examples we have show no signs of happiness. Perhaps witches are even forbidden to disclose their magic to their purely-Muggle intendeds until after marriage because of the Secrecy Act. And Muggles being what they are (Dursleys), there may not be a lot of tolerance for magic after marriage. As for wizard-Muggle marriages, are there examples of that in the books? > I can also envision Severus growing up in a muggle neighborhood, > being the local weird kid, with all the teasing that that entails. > I would expect he hoped all that would stop when he got to > Hogwarts, (and then he found out rich, pureblood kids could be just > as nasty as poor muggle kids). > lealess: Someone upthread (sorry, can't really search now) said that they couldn't see Snape hiding himself away all the time as a child. As someone who basically did that growing up, I can see it. Before I went to school, I never left the house unless a relative was visiting. When I went to school, I spent my time in the library instead of playing with others. So, I can see someone like Snape doing the same. We don't know what kind of education he had before Hogwarts. Assuming Eileen homeschooled him, he may have been substantially isolated from the Muggle kids in his neighborhood. If his father insisted he go to Muggle school, then he probably would have had problems. > > Eventually, as Potioncat notes, Snape totally rejects the > muggle part of his heritage, not because he never was exposed to > muggle ways of doing things, but because wizarding appealed to him > more... . > lealess: I tend to think that Spinner's End was Snape's home as a child. It has the closed-in feelng of much of his life, a padded cell holding secrets and unhappiness, a cell he may have wanted to escape from early in life and later accepted as a quiet retreat, until the rat showed up. The house may have contained Muggle artifacts at one time, but perhaps not many, depending on the status and temperament of Snape's father. In the realm of pure speculation, if Eileen married Tobias because of love, and then hello:witch!, she might have suffered the same magic- debilitating effects as other witches unhappily in love, which would have made her vulnerable to abuse. Perhaps money was also a factor, on a lesser Zambini-scale. The family's fortunes could have declined with the factory, creating additional stress at home. Then you have the odd kid Snape, who gradually shows himself to be magical... that couldn't have helped the situation. As to whether Snape rejected his Muggle-past, we don't directly see him interface with the Muggle world, that I remember, so it is hard to say. He may gossip with his Spinner's End neighbors over the fence, for all we know, though it seems unlikely. When I picture the house, I picture the Bunker's home in the American "All in the Family," based on, I believe, "Til Death Do Us Part" in England. Of course, the house has been improved by the addition of all those books. lealess From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 17:13:22 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:13:22 -0700 Subject: Peter's hand, Wormtail's paw Message-ID: <700201d40510271013x4e60fcc5ub92eda2e9ef6c728@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142169 Carol wrote: > What about true silver? Wormtail's silver hand appears to be > permanent (and very strong, given the twig that he crushes to > powder when he first receives it). And yet it seems to be conjured > out of thin air. And if it's true silver, might it be lethal to a > werewolf? (I'm thinking of Fenrir Greyback, if he's at large or > escapes from Azkaban, not Remus Lupin.) Kemper responded: > And has Wormtail's Silver hand locked him to his human form? Or > can he make the change to rat? > If rat, then does the silver hand change to paw or silver paw? Or > is he some freak rat with a silver, human-esque hand? SSSusan added: Haha! Great questions. I somehow envision Scabbers with a silver paw... as if the silver hand is somehow also capable of the same type of magic its owner can accomplish, in this case transfiguration. But I've got NO canon to support that, of course. Kemper now: I thought more of this. I don't think Peter can transfigure to a rat anymore. It seems as though he would have been in rat form behind the door/wall in Spinner's End. But IIRC, he was human. Do human's have better hearing or rat's? Any zoologists out there? If rats have better hearing then I say he can't transform. If humans have better hearing, then there's not enough canon support for Peter's ability to still transform to his animagus or not. Kemper, who hasn't given Wormtail much thought... until lately. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 17:17:00 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:17:00 -0700 Subject: the Graveyard, life-debt unpaid (moved from OT) Message-ID: <700201d40510271017w62b9cdbj954f52eb7a325226@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142170 Kemper: > Carol, are you suggesting Wormtail's (I hesitate to use the word) > redemption is saving Harry from Greyback? Or that Greyback attacks > Wormtail in some full-moon lunacy, and Wormtail, frightened and > wandless, flails his fists about accidentally maiming/killing > Greyback even though Greyback does land a killing claw on > Wormtail's treacherous jugular? Because if you're suggesting this > last one, I like it a lot. SSSusan: Hee. I like this a lot, too. (Hasn't JKR addressed on her website, though, the issue of silver? In terms of the silver goblet at 12GP and Lupin's ability to touch it?) OTOH I admit that I just DON'T like Wormtail. ... I *have* listened to fans who've defended PP and have tried to be open to their views... but I just can't get past my negative reaction to what I see as cowardice, not just "humanness." Yes, Lupin has shown some cowardice, as well, and I still love his character... but Pettigrew's choices, while perhaps understandable to some degree, have just seemed to me to be of a greater magnitude, with greater (that is, worse) consequences. I'm rambling, though.... My point is that the possibility of PP's redemption and the possibility PP's repaying his life debt to Harry are quite popular in the HP fandom; a lot of people seem to really want to see this happen. For some reason I've been less excited about the prospect -- probably because I just don't like the character much, but maybe also because I wouldn't want to see this happen unless it's something *genuine.* That is, I wouldn't want it to be an accidental repayment of the debt -- PP just doing something which happens to save Harry's life. I'd want it to be something PP considered and elected to do. In the graveyard scene of GoF, we saw Wormtail suggesting to Voldy that they use someone *else's* blood -- that it didn't have to be Harry's -- and I saw that as the one glimmer of hope that PP would like to get out of the mess he's in. In that situation, he chose to not press the point, and I suppose most of us would probably have done likewise. But if PP's going to be redeemed, I'd like it to be REAL, in a situation where he's contemplated what to do, has weighed the consequences of doing or not doing it, and this time DOES defy Voldy. Kemper now: I think you bring up a point that I haven't seen flushed out before. (this thread is starting to be Main List appropriate) Wormtail at the Graveyard. He had most opportunity for redemption here, yet he faltered. He didn't even attempt to save Harry's life when LV was going to AK him. And it's not like LV cast it surprisingly. "'We are not playing hide-and-seek, Harry,' said Voldermort"..."'You cannot hide from me. Does this mean you are tired of our duel? Does this mean thay you would prefer me to finish it now, Harry? Cone out, Harry...come out and play, then...it will be quick... it might even be painless... I would not know... I have never died...'" - GoF, US soft, 662 Where is Wormtail?! Did he not hear any of this silly villian talk? I think he did hear it. He likes to watch bullying as seen in Snape's Worst Memory. Knowing the AK would be cast, Wormtail did nothing but watch. My canon support for this is that Wormtail is still alive. Had he tried to save Harry or interfere with Voldemort, he would be dead. So where's the life debt? I hope we don't see it paid later because it should have been paid at the Graveyard. -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 17:17:05 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:17:05 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142171 > Pippin: Oi'm not tryin' ter turn 'im inter Stan Shunpike, who also knows two vocal styles. But there > is a coarseness to 'Blasted thing. How are you supposed to keep your eyes on all three > heads at once' , 'Just shove a bezoar down their throats' ' a stream of mixed swear words > and hexes' and 'I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her' which is quite > different from the rhetorical flourishes of 'the subtle science and exact art' or 'the magical > defense of the mind against external penetration' and makes me think that Snape's > parents didn't habitually express themselves in double alliterative phrases. I don't understand why do you think is such a contradiction. Have you ever known anyone who would express themselves in flowing 19th century-ish periods when they accidentally drop something heavy on their feet? Or burn their lips with a very hot tea? Or well, you can feel in the blanc according to your taste and imagination. I believe that should such a person existed they would certainly end up in one psychiatric ward or another. As for coarseness, "blasted thing" is certainly a rather mild one and there is nothing law-class about it anyway. And it stands to reason that Mudbloods are filthy, what else should they be? Snape's really no coarser than upper-class malfoys and blacks. Except that Draco wouldn't come up with anything "double-alliterative" even at a wand-point. a_svirn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 27 17:20:03 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:20:03 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages was Spinner's End as home (wasRe: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142172 > lealess: > I am wondering if witch-Muggle marriages *DO* work. The examples we > have show no signs of happiness. Perhaps witches are even forbidden > to disclose their magic to their purely-Muggle intendeds until after > marriage because of the Secrecy Act. And Muggles being what they are > (Dursleys), there may not be a lot of tolerance for magic after > marriage. As for wizard-Muggle marriages, are there examples of that > in the books? Potioncat: The one that comes to mind is the Finnegan family. However, we don't know anything about it. We know Seamus's dad didn't know his mum was a witch at first. We know his mum follows wizarding news and we know he has a magical cousin who can apparate. (We don't know if that cousin is now or recently was a student at Hogwarts.) Are there any Wizard-Husband/Muggle-Wife couples? Dean's father was a wizard, but I don't think anyone knew. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 17:39:01 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:39:01 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: <43607447.20505@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142173 > KJ: > > While Snape seems to resent anything which ridicules him or > lessens his authority, like Gilderoy, Neville's boggart, or the vulture > hat in the Christmas cracker, he also runs out to protect the school in > his night shirt. So much for appearances. I would expect Snape to get > dressed so he wasn't forced to confiscate cartoons of himself in his > night wear. As well, he seems to harbour no particular resentment when > the Trio knocked him out in the shack. He defended them admirably to > Fudge. Why? Surely to avoid the most uncomfortable question: just why did they knock out a teacher that had hastened to defend them from a dangerous criminal? Snape did not want the minister to inquire into this business too particular. What he wanted is to silence the kids and Sirius. Sirius was to be silenced forever and preferably before he could give his version of the events to Dumbledore. He was very anxious to feed him to a Dementor without further ado. About as anxious as later Fudge was to silence Barty in the same fashion if not as successful. a_svirn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 17:41:32 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051027174132.30335.qmail@web34908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142174 CH3ed: I've never been to England but I think I view 12GP the same as most here. Old New England style brownstone row house. I'm just wondering though, since the fidelius charm was done on the house by DD, so the effect of nobody who has not been told by DD himself (or his note) would be able to see the place just happened after the Order was recalled after GoF. Before that the muggles living nearby should have been able to see the place (but may or may not have registered it)? Since they can't see it now, if some muggles come looking for a friend's house nearby, say, and was counting down the number, wouldn't they find it strange that number 12 is missing? And what would happen if the muggle neighbors sold the building (the whole row, say) to a developer who wants to demolish it to build a mall or something? Do you think the Black's protective magic will cause them to be distracted away from doing so the way the muggles who wandered toward the QWC stadium suddenly remembered urgent errands in GoF? I don't think it would be like Hogswart where muggles just see a ruin, since Hogswart is at an isolated location away from the city while 12GP is right in the middle of London. CH3ed From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 17:59:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:59:30 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142175 > > KJ: > > As well, he seems to harbour no particular resentment > when > > the Trio knocked him out in the shack. He defended them admirably > to > > Fudge. Why? a_svirn: > Surely to avoid the most uncomfortable question: just why did they > knock out a teacher that had hastened to defend them from a > dangerous criminal? Snape did not want the minister to inquire into > this business too particular. What he wanted is to silence the kids > and Sirius. Sirius was to be silenced forever and preferably before > he could give his version of the events to Dumbledore. He was very > anxious to feed him to a Dementor without further ado. About as > anxious as later Fudge was to silence Barty in the same fashion if > not as successful. Alla: Absolutely, a_svirn. I think I am 100% agreeing with you on this one. I never bought " Snape defending kids in front of Fudge" argument. Now, to prevent this post from being just " me too", I want to add that I think it fits PERFECTLY with the argument that " being perceived as authority" or something like that is very important to Snape. How could somebody like Snape acknowledge in front of other people that three thirteen year olds overpowered him? Of course he won't do so, because IMO it will diminish his image as powerful wizard, which he cultivates so often ( again IMO). There is NO indication in that scene that Fudge would even dare propose that kids will be expelled or something like that, IMO. What we DO see though is Hermione trying to tell the real story and Snape shutting her up repeatedly. What we also see here is Snape hoping that "Dumbledore will not interfere in Sirius' execution" ( paraphrase, don't have a book with me now). Oh, yes, he wants Sirius soulless ASAP, IMO. Now, I am intrigued about your comparison with Fudge silencing Barty later. I agree it does look the same, but the difference to me is that Snape wants revenge, Fudge on the other hand may have something to hide. Are you saying that Snape is afraid if the true story will come out for some reason? Maybe that Snape WAS aware that Pettigrew was a traitor from the beginning and chose to keep his mouth shut? It was always wierd to me that during those years Snape never met Peter. Just speculating here of course. Alla. From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 17:55:51 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:55:51 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages was Spinner's End as home (wasRe: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142176 lealess: > > I am wondering if witch-Muggle marriages *DO* work. The > > examples we have show no signs of happiness. As for wizard- > > Muggle marriages, are there examples of that in the books? Potioncat wrote: > The one that comes to mind is the Finnegan family. However, we > don't know anything about it. We know Seamus's dad didn't know his > mum was a witch at first. We know his mum follows wizarding news > and we know he has a magical cousin who can apparate. (We don't > know if that cousin is now or recently was a student at Hogwarts.) > > Are there any Wizard-Husband/Muggle-Wife couples? Dean's father > was a wizard, but I don't think anyone knew. Lyra now: For actual, seen-in-canon couples, I'm pretty sure it's limited to the Finnegans, the happy Riddle couple, and the Prince-Snape marriage. As Potioncat says, even Dean doesn't know his father was a wizard (but that's from JKR's website, not the books). But at the same time, in CoS Ron says "If we [wizards] hadn't married muggles, we'd have died out" [Chapter 7], which makes it sound a lot more prevalent than is reflected by what we've seen in the books. Unless Ron is talking vaguely about "the olden days" and it's just not done anymore, you'd think there'd be more Hogwarts students from mixed backgrounds. I'd always assumed the Finnegans were still together, but then someone pointed out to me we never see Mr. Finnegan, just Mrs. Finnegan. But the places we see her, such as the QWC and in Hogsmeade for the funeral, aren't places a muggle would likely go anyway, so I'll let you decide if Seamus' parents are still together for yourself. Lealess wrote: > > Perhaps witches are even forbidden to disclose their magic to > > their purely-Muggle intendeds until after marriage because of the > > Secrecy Act. And Muggles being what they are (Dursleys), there > > may not be a lot of tolerance for magic after marriage. Lyra again: I've wondered, too, if there might be some stipulation against revealing magic before you're married. [somehow, I wouldn't put such a stupid rule above the MoM.] If that's the case, well there's nothing like a little disception to get a marriage off on the wrong foot, is there? But the fact that some witches/wizards can (apparenly) disguise their magic enough to fall in love with, get engaged and marry someone before they reveal they are magical (to their spouses' astonishment) suggests wizards are much better at moving in muggle society than most of the pureblood wizards we've seen seem to be. Lyra. From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 18:45:40 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:45:40 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages was Spinner's End as home (wasRe: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lyraofjordan" wrote: > > > But the fact that some witches/wizards can (apparenly) disguise > their magic enough to fall in love with, get engaged and marry > someone before they reveal they are magical (to their spouses' > astonishment) suggests wizards are much better at moving in muggle > society than most of the pureblood wizards we've seen seem to be. > Either that, or they (1) marry in haste, or (2) use magic's little helper (love potion). lealess From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Thu Oct 27 18:40:15 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:40:15 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142178 I didn't understand much about the Horcruxes. The only thing I sort of got is the basic mechanics of making a Horcrux, which seems to be basically (in 3 easy steps, if you will ): 1- previously choose an object to be your Horcrux. 2- kill someone. Supposedly that will be enought to split your soul because it's an act of 'supreme evil' 3- using a certain spell, encase the torn portion of your soul inside the object you chose, and you're set! Of course, if you're Lord Voldemort, steps 1 and 2 will be a little more elaborate, because as Dumbledore pointed out he favoured 'special objects' _ so he had to do a little previous work to find them_ and he also chose particularly significant victims for his Horcrux murders. And here I have big questions, who were his victims and why were the killings important? I thought it was odd Frank Bryce (that his name??), the old muggle from GoF, was one of them because how was he significant to LV? Actually we don't know who any of the victims were. Dumbledore just suspects Frank was one of them, just as he suspects Nagini is the last Horcrux. And we (the readers) think it's logical Tom Riddle sr. was the victim connected with the Peverell ring Horcrux (unless it's somewhere in canon and I missed it). Could the identity of the victims be important to the plot? I don't think it is, really, because if DD is right there are seven of them which is a lot! I simply don't think there will be enough room to fit the uncovering of the victims' identities in B7, with all the four Hurcruxes left for Harry to find! Lucianam From papa at marvels.org Thu Oct 27 18:45:28 2005 From: papa at marvels.org (Ralph Miller) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:45:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic-Muggle Marriages was Spinner's End as home (wasRe: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <42FD96A4000201CD@mta12.wss.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142179 Lealess wrote: >> Perhaps witches are even forbidden to disclose their magic to >> their purely-Muggle intendeds until after marriage because of the >> Secrecy Act. And Muggles being what they are (Dursleys), there >> may not be a lot of tolerance for magic after marriage. Lyra: >I've wondered, too, if there might be some stipulation against >revealing magic before you're married. [somehow, I wouldn't put such >a stupid rule above the MoM.] If that's the case, well there's >nothing like a little disception to get a marriage off on the wrong >foot, is there? RM: IMO it doesn't make much sense not to reveal before marriage. If you don't and they freak out after the wedding the MoM not only has to alter memories but undo/revise weddings, guests memories, evidence etc. If on the other hand you reveal before the wedding and they freak all that needs to be revised is their memory of the reveal. So I would think except in cases where Magic is used to force the muggle to love, (or at least believe they love), the wizard the reveal would be done before the wedding unless the wizard doesn't plan to reveal at all. Just my 2 cents, now I'll have to read it and see if it makes sense :-). From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 27 19:14:56 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:14:56 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages was Spinner's End as home (wasRe: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142180 lyraofjordan: > > But the fact that some witches/wizards can (apparenly) disguise > > their magic enough to fall in love with, get engaged and marry > > someone before they reveal they are magical (to their spouses' > > astonishment) suggests wizards are much better at moving in muggle > > society than most of the pureblood wizards we've seen seem to be. > > lealess: > Either that, or they (1) marry in haste, or (2) use magic's little > helper (love potion). Ceridwen: There's not much to dating, or at least there wasn't when people didn't move in together for a trial or a while. Sit in the date's car, go to the movies, go to dinner, go to a Muggle sporting event, go to the beach, dress the way you see other Muggles of the appropriate sex dressing, get a kiss good-night, and that's it. Not a whole lot of need for magic that can't be hidden, if for any at all. Maybe that's why more witches married Muggle men than wizards married Muggle women back then? Witches only had to ride in their Muggle date's car, while the wizard would either have to learn how to drive (and get hold of a car) or learn how to run the bus systems, and of course, how to operate the different currency. And, to lealess's post about SolitaryTeen!Snape, I was the same way, too. Library for lunch, either the garage or my room at home. I lived in a bad neighborhood, and my mother only socialized with people from the church, so that was most of my after-school socialization. And the church wasn't in our neighborhood. Replace 'church' with 'Wizarding World', and that may have been Snape's upbringing. Ceridwen. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 19:03:53 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Soul and Power are Different Things - Was: Under the influence or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051027190354.60408.qmail@web34910.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142181 Jen wrote: " I attribute it to the transfer of powers since I don't like the Harrycrux idea :). I mean, it's interesting isn't it? Harry can speak what we find out in HBP is a language passed *genetically* through the Slytherin line! What could that mean? I think all this is connected to the gleam. Harry has a 'bit of Voldemort' inside himself, and Voldemort has a bit of Harry now." CH3ed: I agree with Jen. DD told Harry that LV transferred some of his "power" to Harry in that failed AK. From DD's explanation to Harry in HBP that LV's damaged soul takes nothing away from his magical power, it is quite clear that soul and power are two different things. I think Harry has some of LV's power but not his soul; therefore, he is not one of LV's horcruxes. From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Thu Oct 27 19:46:34 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:46:34 -0000 Subject: Has Professor Trelawney been kidnapped? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142182 I'm sorry if anyone has posted this before. I think Professor Trelawney might have been kidnapped under Voldemort's orders during the Death Eaters invasion of Hogwarts, while everybody was busy in the Astronomy Tower. With the Order and the DE's fighting under the AT, nobody could have noticed anything going on in the other tower _ the North Tower. And of course no one has missed Trelawney yet, because Dumbledore's death is a tragedy, and during tragedies other problems often go unnoticed. Here are some facts: Dumbledore to Harry, in his office, just after the battle in the D.O.M.: 'Voldemort, of course, had been obsessed with the possibility of hearing the prophecy ever since he regained his body,...' Less than twenty days afterwards, Dumbledore to Harry in the Weasley's broom shed: 'There are only two people in the whole world who know the full contents of the prophecy made about you and Lord Voldemort, and they are both standing in this smelly, spidery broom shed.' A few weeks after that, just before term starts, in Knockturn Alley: the Trio hear Malfoy threaten Borgin into helping him fix something (that now we know was the Vanishing Cabinet). Presumably first half of March next year (just after Ron's birthday), Dumbledore to Harry, in his office: '... nor can I ask Sybill Trelawney to leave. Between ourselves, she has no idea of the danger she would be in outside the castle.' June, near end of term: Death Eaters invade Hogwarts. Battle and death happen in the Astronomy Tower. Dumbledore's funeral: Trelawney's name is not mentioned amongst the people who were there. Actually, she's not mentioned at all after the DE's attack. And after the facts, a bit of thinking: what has Voldemort been up to all year? One might argue he's been spreading terror and mayhem in Britain and gathering his army, and that has been enough to keep him happy. But I don't think so: wasn't he obsessed about hearing the whole prophecy? Why wouldn't he still be? Only a couple of months after Voldemort's first attempt to secure the Prophecy _ luring Harry into the D.O.M._ a second attempt was probably being carried on already. I'm talking about Malfoy working on the Vanishing Cabinets. During HBP, we are repeatedly reminded the Dark Lord doesn't really think Draco will succeed in killing Dumbledore. Which is just common sense anyway, why would Voldemort think a schoolboy could do something better than him? And killing the greatest wizard alive, no less! What I think Voldemort wanted, besides punishing the Malfoys, was to get his Death Eaters into Hogwarts. And why? To try and get the prophecy once more. If Dumbledore was able to produce a memory of Trelawney making the Prophecy, why wouldn't Trelawney be able as well? She doesn't know she made it, she was in a trance. But the memory should be there anyway, since she was there, in that moment, in that place. Voldemort is a great Legillimens. He was able to get all the memories he wanted from Bertha Jonkins, so he's probably confident he'll succeed with Trelawney. She's his last hope to hear the prophecy (he doesn't know Harry has seen Dumbledore's memory, and he wouldn't be able to Legillimens Dumbledore, would he). But wasn't the whole Death Eater invasion about killing Dumbledore??? Well, maybe not. How would Voldemort guess Dumbledore would be weakened because the had drunk the potion that night? He probably sent those Death Eaters to their deaths, as he expected would happen to Draco. Snape said, 'I think he intends me to do it, in the end...'. So if Voldemort thought there was a chance of murdering Dumbledore, that chance was Snape. While things were going on in the Astronomy Tower, better and more able people (Bellatrix? Voldemort himself?) were in the North Tower kidnapping Trelawney _ in my opinion. Also in my opinion, Dumbledore's death came as an unexpected, but big bonus to Voldemort _ Snape is probably in the heights of glory right now. Lucianam From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 20:55:04 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:55:04 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages was Spinner's End as home (wasRe: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142183 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lyraofjordan" wrote: > > lealess: > > > I am wondering if witch-Muggle marriages *DO* work. The > > > examples we have show no signs of happiness. As for wizard- > > > Muggle marriages, are there examples of that in the books? > > Potioncat wrote: > > The one that comes to mind is the Finnegan family. However, we > > don't know anything about it. ... > > Lyra now: > ... But at the same time, in CoS Ron says "If we [wizards] hadn't > married muggles, we'd have died out" [Chapter 7], which makes it > sound a lot more prevalent than is reflected by what we've seen in > the books. ... > bboyminn: Let's no get carried away and forget that Ron' statement had a context. He said it in a conversation about 'purebloods', and his point is that if purebloods only marry purebloods then wizard would have died out, which is exactly what the book tells us about pureblood families. There are more options and I believe that these options are what Ron is referring to. For example, if Harry marries Ginny, that is not a pureblood marriage even though both of them are magical beings. I would call it a 'full-blood' marrage; the marriage of a not-pureblood magical person to a pureblood magical person. Even if Ron marries Hermione, Ron is marrying a magical person, BUT he is marrying into a muggle family. My point is there are may options for marrying in the wizard world the don't include magical/non-magical marriages. I'm not excluding those, simply saying that the scope is bigger that pureblood/pureblood and magical/muggle. I think the point Ron is making is not that most /marriages/ are mixed, but that most /families/ are mixed; either indirectly as in Ron marrying Hermione, distantly as in Harry marrying Ginny, or directly as in Mr and Mrs Finnegan's case. > Lealess wrote: > > > Perhaps witches are even forbidden to disclose their magic to > > > their purely-Muggle intendeds until after marriage because of > >> the Secrecy Act. ... > > Lyra again: > I've wondered, too, if there might be some stipulation against > revealing magic before you're married. ... If that's the case, > well there's nothing like a little disception to get a marriage > off on the wrong foot, is there? > bboyminn: That is a sticky situation, and something I never thought of before. Techincally, you can't reveal yourself to a muggle. Now if the muggle asked to marry you, and you said yes, then there is room for the very delicate explanation before the blessed event occurs. If the person can not accept your magical status and is deemed a risk, then you can call in the Obliviators to recitfy the situation if necessary. A separate point that may people seem to miss, is that within very definite boundaries, muggles are allowed to know about magic. We see this in the Dursleys. That fact that Petunia has magical beings in her family, while greatly denied and ignored, is known, and it is further know that they actually have a magical being living with them (Harry). As long as they are certain to keep the secret, then I think it's OK. I can only conclude that a muggle knowing about magic is related to the protection of the existance of the wizard world as a whole from the muggle world as a whole. It seems as if it is alright for trusted immediate family members to know the secret. Keep in mind too that if an indiscrete family member were to reveal that their sister-in-law (for example) were a 'witch'; there are plenty of common real world interpretations that would come into play long before the person pondered the idea that the 'witch' in question might truly be a magical being. So in some sense, some degree of revealing the 'secret' CAN occur which does not in fact actually reveal the secret. Just a bunch of rambling. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 21:20:44 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:20:44 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142184 > Alla: > >> Now, I am intrigued about your comparison with Fudge silencing Barty > later. I agree it does look the same, but the difference to me is > that Snape wants revenge, Fudge on the other hand may have something > to hide. > > Are you saying that Snape is afraid if the true story will come out > for some reason? Maybe that Snape WAS aware that Pettigrew was a > traitor from the beginning and chose to keep his mouth shut? It was > always wierd to me that during those years Snape never met Peter. > Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. I do not deny that Snape wanted revenge, but *that* does not explain his urgent desire to dispatch Sirius as soon as possible. (And, sorry, I don't believe that it had anything to do with his alleged vanity). Nor does it explain his total disinterest for Sirius's version of events. In his line of business, so to speak, such disregard for details is rather incomprehensible, and may well prove fatal. Looks like Snape *knew* all there was to know about Pettigrew. And if he hadn't known *all* of it from the start he rectified it by eavesdropping the Lupin's story. He came in when Lupin started with his narrative and chose to reveal himself only after learning about Pettigrew being an animagus and after letting Lupin to explain about the Prank. Whereupon his first move (after a bit of gloating) was to silence Lupin, quite literally by gagging him. Then he tried to feed Sirius to Dementors without Dumbledore being the wiser. When that scheme failed he still persisted trying to silence the Trio ("Hold your tongue!"). And when it didn't work tried to dismiss their testimony as some sort of rumbling of three confused people and one dangerous maniac. Which was fine with Fudge but didn't work on Dumbledore. a_svirn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 27 21:26:34 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:26:34 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142185 > Alla: > How could somebody like Snape acknowledge in front of other people > that three thirteen year olds overpowered him? Of course he won't do > so, because IMO it will diminish his image as powerful wizard, which > he cultivates so often ( again IMO). Hickengruendler: I don't have PoA handy and can't look, so please correct me, if I'm wrong. But didn't he admit, that they overpowered him? Sure, he said that they were bewitched, but that doesn't change the fact, that they knocked him off. Or was there something else he said? Alla: > Are you saying that Snape is afraid if the true story will come out > for some reason? Maybe that Snape WAS aware that Pettigrew was a > traitor from the beginning and chose to keep his mouth shut? It was > always wierd to me that during those years Snape never met Peter. > Hickengruendler: I actually think that fits. Wormtail was Voldie's secret spy, therefore I doubt he would show him to everyone. Not to mention that Karkaroff said, that not every DE knew all his companions. On the other hand, the statement that some DE's were angry with Peter because they thought he betrayed him, contradicts this somewhat. Still, I would think Voldemort has enough sense not to tell too many people, who his secret spy is. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Oct 27 21:33:11 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:33:11 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. I do not deny that Snape > wanted revenge, but *that* does not explain his urgent desire to > dispatch Sirius as soon as possible. (And, sorry, I don't believe > that it had anything to do with his alleged vanity). Nor does it > explain his total disinterest for Sirius's version of events. In his > line of business, so to speak, such disregard for details is rather > incomprehensible, and may well prove fatal. Looks like Snape *knew* > all there was to know about Pettigrew. And if he hadn't known *all* > of it from the start he rectified it by eavesdropping the Lupin's > story. He came in when Lupin started with his narrative and chose to > reveal himself only after learning about Pettigrew being an animagus > and after letting Lupin to explain about the Prank. Whereupon his > first move (after a bit of gloating) was to silence Lupin, quite > literally by gagging him. > > Then he tried to feed Sirius to Dementors without Dumbledore being > the wiser. When that scheme failed he still persisted trying to > silence the Trio ("Hold your tongue!"). And when it didn't work > tried to dismiss their testimony as some sort of rumbling of three > confused people and one dangerous maniac. Which was fine with Fudge > but didn't work on Dumbledore. > > > a_svirn > really? I wish I had PoA on me right now. I was under the impression that Snape never heard that PP was an animagus; that he only heard about the Prank and then appeared in the doorway. And I never got the impression that Snape was going to hand over Sirius to the dementors by himself. I was under the impression that Sirius would be turned over to MoM and they would determine Sirius's fate. As far as silencing the Trio, it could be that Snape was embarrassed by the whole event in the shack; however, I didn't think he was trying to *hide* anything from Dumbledore; hence DD's comment to Fudge about Snape being disappointed (when Snape flipped out). This brings me to another, off-topic point. I've read recent comments about how Snape has a bad temper - I think I've have only read of 3 instances where Snape loses it over the course of 6 years. a) PoA - the infamous scene with the spit flying. After he has been duped by the Trio & DD with Sirius. He KNOWS Harry had something to do with it - he can't prove it. His imbalance is due to his hatred of Sirius. b) OotP - the pensive scene with Harry. Throws Harry across the room and breaks a bottle of cockroaches. Can't blame him for this one. c) HBP - when Harry calls him a coward for the 2nd time in Flight of the Prince. If you believe in DDM!Snape, this makes sense that he would get really angry about that statement. I can't imagine ESE! Snape or OFH!Snape getting this steamed about that comment. Now, I've lost my cool way more than 3 times over the last 6 years - does this mean I have a bad temper? No....just that there are things that make me mad. In the above 3 cases, can anyone blame Snape for getting mad? I can't. colebiancardi From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 21:54:01 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:54:01 -0000 Subject: Has Professor Trelawney been kidnapped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142187 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: > > I'm sorry if anyone has posted this before. > > I think Professor Trelawney might have been kidnapped under > Voldemort's orders during the Death Eaters invasion of Hogwarts, > while everybody was busy in the Astronomy Tower. > While things were going on in the Astronomy Tower, better and more > able people (Bellatrix? Voldemort himself?) were in the North Tower > kidnapping Trelawney _ in my opinion. > > Also in my opinion, Dumbledore's death came as an unexpected, but > big bonus to Voldemort _ Snape is probably in the heights of glory > right now. zgirnius: Well, if anyone posted it before, it is news to me anyway! *Cool* theory. I like it! Even though it has one disturbing (to me) implication. Only Harry and DD know the full contents of the prophecy, suggesting the DoM employee who filed it is dead. Who, other than that dead guy, Harry and DD, know *who* made the prophecy? Snape... Well, OK, maybe Snape identified the Seeress who made the Prophecy to V all those many years ago. I feel better now. From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Oct 27 22:03:42 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:03:42 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142188 > colebiancardi > > really? I wish I had PoA on me right now. I was under the > impression that Snape never heard that PP was an animagus; that he > only heard about the Prank and then appeared in the doorway. > Christina: In the Scholastic version, Snape enters on page 352, right when Lupin is saying that he was the one who made all the "haunting" noises in the Shrieking Shack. He hears Lupin talking about how Dumbledore let him come to Hogwarts, and a bit about how bad his transformations used to be. Lupin also mentions that the Marauders had become Animagi for him. He says Peter's nickname and says that he was the smallest of them, but makes no specific mention to Peter's exact form. Lupin goes on to explain how guilty he has felt over the course of the year for lying to Dumbledore. He actually says some things that Snape could take as pretty incriminating: (PoA, pg 355) "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..." Lupin's face had hardened, and there was self-disgust in his voice. "All this year, I have been battling with myself, wondering whether I should tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an Animagus. But I didn't do it. Why? Because I was too cowardly. It would have meant admitting that I'd betrayed his trust while I was at school, admitting that I'd led others along with me...and Dumbledore's trust has meant eveyrthing to me. He let me into Hogwarts as a boy, and he gave me a job when I have been shunned all my adult life, unable to find paid work because of what I am. And so I convinced myself that Sirius was getting into the school using dark arts he learned from Voldemort, that being an Animagus had nothing to do with it...so, in a way, Snape's been right about me all along." (end quote) Now, to somebody who already thinks that Lupin has helped Sirius get into the castle, and as somebody who did *not* hear anything about the Scabbers-is-Pettigrew revelation, Lupin's speech here is practically a confession. This is the last bit of evidence that Snape needs to "prove" to himself that Sirius is innocent. He waits to eavesdrop a bit more to hear what they have to say about him, and then bursts from the invisibility cloak. colebiancardi: > Now, I've lost my cool way more than 3 times over the last 6 years - > does this mean I have a bad temper? Christina: I sure hope not. I've lost my cool more than three times in the last six months, but I'm usually pretty cheerful. colebiancardi: > In the above 3 cases, can anyone blame Snape for > getting mad? I can't. Christina: Me neither. Not to mention the fact that we've seen *Harry* go into capslock-mode more times than we've seen Snape do it, IIRC. Christina From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 22:04:35 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:04:35 -0000 Subject: the Graveyard, life-debt unpaid (moved from OT) In-Reply-To: <700201d40510271017w62b9cdbj954f52eb7a325226@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142189 Carol earlier (on OTChatter): > What about true silver? Wormtail's silver hand appears to be permanent (and very strong, given the twig that he crushes to powder when he first receives it). And yet it seems to be conjured out of thin air. And if it's true silver, might it be lethal to a > werewolf? (I'm thinking of Fenrir Greyback, if he's at large or > escapes from Azkaban, not Remus Lupin.) Kemper responded: > > Carol, are you suggesting Wormtail's (I hesitate to use the word) redemption is saving Harry from Greyback? Or that Greyback attacks Wormtail in some full-moon lunacy, and Wormtail, frightened and wandless, flails his fists about accidentally maiming/killing Greyback even though Greyback does land a killing claw on Wormtail's treacherous jugular? Because if you're suggesting this last one, I like it a lot. Carol again: Not redemption. He's just too unrepentant and too self-preserving to deserve redemption, not to mention the staggering number of deaths and other crimes that can be directly attributed to him (in contrast to Snape). But the life debt will be important and the silver hand is emphasized in the (extremely unflattering) description of him in "Spinner's End." He literally "gave his right hand" for the Dark Lord (a cruel play on words that Voldemort actually makes before PP can possibly understand it) and he seems to treasure it (rather like Gollum's "Precious"). He has also sworn eternal gratitude and loyalty in return for it (graveyard scene, GoF), which clashes rather dramatically with that life debt. Since the hand is silver and silver is supposed to be lethal to werewolves in "full-moon lunacy" mode (as opposed to werewolves in human form drinking from silver goblets at 12 GP), I think the silver hand and life debt subplots will come together in some way. We know from a JKR interview that Wormtail won't kill Lupin, but I think he'll repay the life debt, willingly or not, by saving Harry from Greyback (who seems to be most inconveniently in Azkaban at the moment, but I expect a prison break in Book 7). So why not a fight to the death between the human rat and the werewolf, each with a deadly hand on the other's throat? (If Snape is a good guy, he might even carry Rat!Wormtail around in his pocket with this scenario in mind. Okay. Sorry. I'm getting a bit fanciful now.) Kemper wrote: > And has Wormtail's Silver hand locked him to his human form? Or can he make the change to rat? If rat, then does the silver hand change to paw or silver paw? Or is he some freak rat with a silver, human-esque hand? SSSusan added: Haha! Great questions. I somehow envision Scabbers with a silver paw... as if the silver hand is somehow also capable of the same type of magic its owner can accomplish, in this case transfiguration. But I've got NO canon to support that, of course. Carol responds: I don't think that Wormtail is locked into human form. After all, both McGonagall and Rita Skeeter's Animagus forms have markings to indicate their glasses, which have transformed with them. If glasses can transform, surely a silver hand actually attached to Wormtail's body can. Besides, we don't know if the hand is really silver. It was conjured out of thin air, as I mentioned in my original post. It should have melted away like Leprechaun gold by now. But since it isn't real (LV could hardly have manufactured it before his body was restored and summoned it to the graveyard), I can easily see it magically transfiguring into a silver paw when PP transforms. (Wonder what the sewer rats would make of it if he rejoined them?) Kemper (to SSS): > I think you bring up a point that I haven't seen flushed out before. Wormtail at the Graveyard. He had most opportunity for redemption here, yet he faltered. He didn't even attempt to save Harry's life when LV was going to AK him. And it's not like LV cast it surprisingly. > Where is Wormtail?! Did he not hear any of this silly villian talk? I think he did hear it. Knowing the AK would be cast, Wormtail did nothing but watch. Carol responds: I think that Wormtail, who has just suffered an excruciating injury and is now dissolved in tears of joy and gratitude, is not paying much attention to Voldie's theatrics. And possibly the consequences for not fulfilling the life debt don't kick in because Harry doesn't actually die. I think, though, that his gratitude to LV is beginning to fade (he seems to have suffered from physical abuse at Voldie's hands and is willing to tolerate Snape's sneers rather than return to LV). Maybe Snape will remind PP of the life debt (assuming that he knows about it--he was unconscious at the time) or maybe PP will remember it himself. He and the silver hand have to be in the story for a reason, over and above the restoration of LV to his body, which is a done deal. Carol, combining two related posts to make the List Elves happy From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 27 22:13:03 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:13:03 -0000 Subject: Has Professor Trelawney been kidnapped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" > wrote: > > > > I'm sorry if anyone has posted this before. > > > > I think Professor Trelawney might have been kidnapped under > > Voldemort's orders during the Death Eaters invasion of Hogwarts, > > while everybody was busy in the Astronomy Tower. > > > > > While things were going on in the Astronomy Tower, better and more > > able people (Bellatrix? Voldemort himself?) were in the North Tower > > kidnapping Trelawney _ in my opinion. > > > > Also in my opinion, Dumbledore's death came as an unexpected, but > > big bonus to Voldemort _ Snape is probably in the heights of glory > > right now. > > zgirnius: > Well, if anyone posted it before, it is news to me anyway! *Cool* > theory. I like it! Even though it has one disturbing (to me) > implication. Only Harry and DD know the full contents of the > prophecy, suggesting the DoM employee who filed it is dead. Who, > other than that dead guy, Harry and DD, know *who* made the prophecy? > Snape... > > Well, OK, maybe Snape identified the Seeress who made the Prophecy to > V all those many years ago. I feel better now. > Hickengruendler: I'm pretty sure Voldemort knows, who made the prophecy. Snape probably told him, before he changed sides or pretended to change (whichever you think is true). Also, there are the initials on the prophecy and of course the fact that Dumbledore hired Trelawney as Divination teacher the same day the prophecy was made. Even if Snape didn't tell Voldemort who made the prophecy, I'm sure Voldie could have figured this out easily. About the theory itself: I think it's possible, but the very fact that I think so makes me feel incredibily sorry for Sybill. Imagine that it seems possible, that she's gone for days and nobody in the castle even realizes this. However, I think she's still in the school and was at Dumbledore's funeral. Admittingly, she wasn't mentioned by name, but neither were Flitwick or Pomfrey. It was said that all the staff came, and I assume this includes Trelawney. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 22:23:45 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:23:45 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?SW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gKHdhcyBSZTogRHVtYmxl?= =?iso-8859-1?B?ZG9yZSdzICLDouKCrMWTcGVhY2VmdWwgZXhwcmVz?= =?iso-8859-1?B?c2lvbsOi4oKswj8/?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142191 > Pippin: > The general idea is that night is falling, and that's why Buckbeak's execution is at sunset in > PoA, but in OOP there had to be light enough when Harry and Hermione took Umbridge > into the forest that Ron et al could have seen which path they took. "We saw you heading > into the forest out of the window and followed." > Neri: Not bad. Now all that is left is to explain the thematic value of dinner, and why it matches the difference in the sun's angle in both books. > Pippin: > Er, then how did Dumbledore know that Snape had contacted the Order at all? Snape > hasn't had a chance to report but the Order members at the Ministry have. Or is this > another hypothetical conversation between Snape and Dumbledore by means of the > hypothetical instant communications device that would cause all sorts of plot holes if it > existed? (The thing needs an acronym. But in the glory days of TBAY, it would have > earned its inventor a yellow flag for being non-canonical magic.) > Neri: A Yellow Flag Violation is "attempting to resolve a FLINT or other mystery in a past book by inventing a spell, charm, potion, magical device, or character that would have been described or used in that book had such a spell, charm, potion, magical device, or character existed." http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html#flag I'm not inventing anything. I'm looking for the most likely explanation for Dumbledore knowing the full details of Snape's involvement in his talk with Harry. Canon doesn't tell us how Dumbledore knew, yet he must have been told by somebody after the battle. Who was that somebody? In the beginning of Ch. 37, when Dumbledore joins Harry in his office, he doesn't get there by portkey, the way he sent Harry. Instead, he appears in his *fireplace*. This means he could well be arriving from somewhere inside the castle itself. From Snape's office, for example, where he perhaps stopped by to find out Snape's version of the events. We have seen once teachers using the fires to move between their offices. This was in PoA, and it was Snape calling Lupin to his office. We have also seen *once* people arriving to Hogwarts from outside by fire ? in HBP, Harry and the Weasleys arriving after Christmas through McGonagall's fire. This gives equal canon support to Dumbledore arriving to his office straight from the Ministry or from another room in the castle. Even if Dumbledore does arrive to his office straight from one of the fires in the Ministry, it would still suggest he now trusts them again, after Umbridge was officially removed by Fudge. Which would mean a short Ministry-Hogwarts talk with Snape through the fire is quite possible. When talking with Harry, Dumbledore sounds very sure about what had happened from Snape's point of view. He seems to grasp exactly what was the situation in Umbridge's office without Harry telling him. He talks confidently about Snape's realizations, worries, intentions and deductions. If I understand your explanation correctly, you think he got all that information from questioning the battle-fatigued Lupin and Shaklebolt, who in turn got it from Snape by patronus. Now, I won't threat you with a yellow flag for inventing a talk that was never reported in canon , but it *would* take Dumbledore the same amount of time to get this information directly from Snape. These two explanations are equally hypothetical and equally probable, and canon doesn't favor one over the other. And this was exactly my original point. I'm not saying it really happened the way I suggested. I'm just saying it's a feasible possibility. It's made feasible because JKR has Dumbledore say that in the first time Snape attempted to contact *Sirius*, not "the Order", and that he found *Sirius* was at 12GP, with no other Order member mentioned. And Sirius is now conveniently dead. The possibility is left open that Snape never contacted the Order the first time around, but told Dumbledore that he did after hearing from him that Sirius was killed. > Pippin: > Anyway, Snape would have to know that Sirius was going to be killed and be certain that > he hadn't talked to any other order members before he died. > Neri: I'm not saying Snape planned it that way from the beginning. Whatever really happened that night, it almost certainly didn't happen the way any of the sides originally planned it. Everybody was improvising and/or temporarily saved by unforeseen occurrences. Snape may have been too. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 22:54:01 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:54:01 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142192 KJ wrote: As well, he [Snape] seems to harbour no particular resentment when the Trio knocked him out in the shack. He defended them admirably to Fudge. Why? > A_svirn replied: > Surely to avoid the most uncomfortable question: just why did they > knock out a teacher that had hastened to defend them from a > dangerous criminal? Snape did not want the minister to inquire into > this business too particular. What he wanted is to silence the kids > and Sirius. Sirius was to be silenced forever and preferably before > he could give his version of the events to Dumbledore. He was very > anxious to feed him to a Dementor without further ado. Carol responds: Other posters have already shown that Snape did not hear the part of Lupin's speech about PP being a rat, and he was unconscious when PP transformed. What he heard he could easily have interpreted as further evidence that Lupin was helping the escaped murderer into the school (not to mention that he knew quite well that the werewolf was about to transform and endanger three students, which is probably why he bound Lupin rather than Black. You're assuming that his motive in telling Fudge that the kids were confunded was to silence them. But why would he need to do that? He had rushed out to save them from a murderer and a werewolf, and he *did* conjure stretchers and take the three students and the man he thought was a murderer back to the school. Maybe Snape asked himself that same question: Why would three students knock out a teacher who had come to save them? And maybe the only answer that made sense to him was that they had been confunded. In any case, it *is* likely that HRH would have been punished or even expelled for attacking a teacher, and Snape saves them from whatever punishment they would have received, whether he is lying to protect them or telling what he perceives to be the truth. I see no need whatever to lie to protect himself. (It's rashness worthy of James himself to rush out to face both a werewolf and a supposed mass murderer, but it's hardly something he needs to cover up.) Your reading assumes that Snape must already have known that PP was alive and that Sirius was innocent of his murder. But no one knew that, not even Lupin himself or Dumbledore. And, as others have noted, probably only LV himself knew the identity of his spy. (That's the way it works. If the spy's cover is blown, his usefulness is ended.) As far as Snape knows, *Black* is the spy and traitor who has come to Hogwarts to kill Harry, destroying the Fat Lady's painting and later actually entering Harry's room and attacking Ron's bed curtains with a knife. Not exactly evidence of innocence. Carol From weaslediva at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 20:58:37 2005 From: weaslediva at yahoo.com (Deborah Hunt) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chidren in battle of MOM WAS: Re: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051027205837.31728.qmail@web36215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142193 > > Valky: > > [Ron Ginny and Luna in the planet room] Somehow, all three survived and escaped four DE's attacking them but Luna was the only one capable of fighting, this is a suspicious set of circumstances Weaslediva: I think the time room and planet room are the same room. It is a Space/Time continuum, a tesseract. They were all in the same room, just in different dimensions so to speak. A very useful room for time journeys that take characters from place to place. Handy room for wrapping up lots of loose ends in the final plot. (or for time-turning and saving someone a la Buckbeak. Weaslediva From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Thu Oct 27 21:06:46 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:06:46 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142194 lyraofjordan: > > > But the fact that some witches/wizards can (apparenly) disguise > > > their magic enough to fall in love with, get engaged and marry > > > someone before they reveal they are magical (to their spouses' > > > astonishment) suggests wizards are much better at moving in > muggle > > > society than most of the pureblood wizards we've seen seem to be. > > > > lealess: > > Either that, or they (1) marry in haste, or (2) use magic's little > > helper (love potion). > > Ceridwen wrote: > There's not much to dating, or at least there wasn't when people > didn't move in together for a trial or a while. Sit in the date's > car, go to the movies, go to dinner, go to a Muggle sporting event, > go to the beach, dress the way you see other Muggles of the > appropriate sex dressing, get a kiss good-night, and that's it. Not > a whole lot of need for magic that can't be hidden, if for any at all. > Lyra again: Well, I haven't been on the dating scene for years myself (for which I am eternally grateful), but try to imagine the average wizard in the situations you've mentioned. Let's try to imagine Ron (a wiser and hopefully more mature Ron than we see in HBP) on a date. In the first place, he doesn't own a fellytone or know how to use one, so he'd have to make all his date arrangements in person, and probably have to come up with a good excuse when the girl asked for his phone number. He knows nothing about muggle sports and would have to fake both interest and knowledge if she suggested a football game (because wouldn't it be odd if he didn't know anything about football). Probably same with movies. I'd think a girl would start being suspicious that something wasn't right already. Just coming up with topics for conversation would be pretty hard, since Ron doesn't read/watch the muggle news, shop in muggle stores, watch muggle TV, study the same subjects as muggles, have a mugggle kind of job, etc. And any magic-related topics (including funny stories about Fred and George, what his dad does for a living, and bragging about his Quidditch abilities) would be off limits. Unless he did some serious research (or took remedial muggle studies) and came up with an extensive "backstory" he'd be lost trying to talk to a muggle for an extended period, I'd think. Then there are Ron's cultural prejudices he'd have to overcome or disguise -- referring to doctors as "nutters," for instance. Controlling the urge do a little magic would seem to be the least of his problems in fitting in with muggles to pull off enough successful dates to get to the engaged part. It's really about going into a totally different culture and convincing a native that you're a native too; and that's not such as easy thing to do. On SoliatryTeen!Snape: I suspect whether he lived in a muggle or wizard community, he was a solitary kid. In either case though, people would be aware enough of him to think of him as the weird kid and tease him when they did see him, which is why I think he started inventing curses. From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 27 23:10:10 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:10:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's Speech patterns (was CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142195 > > Marianne: > > I hadn't thought of that, but I like the idea of Snape > > reinventing > > himself, or, at least, taking steps to hide or improve his > > background to fit with the norms of the people around him that he > > met at Hogwarts. I think this also fits in with his penchant of > > referring to himself in the third person, which I commented on > > earlier in this chapter discussion. Maybe it's time to resurrect > > the discussion of Insecure!Snape. Expectopatronnie: Doesn't Snape's background remind you of VM? I mean: Spinners End Vs. the manor in Little Hangleton (where the detached son comes for refuge in times of need), the muggle father and the witch mother, relatives coming from a very low socio-economic background... Maybe Snape is reinventing himself just as Tom Riddle has? ('Who??? Is this Lord Voldemort???). So maybe it's not insecure!Snape but Antisocial!Snape. A Snape calling himself HBP,ignoring and metaphorically killing his muggle father by this. He wants nothing to do with his past, nothing to do with the people who brought him up.Those tapes from the BBC are erasing his parents (or maybe just his father). Harry, on the other hand, will have to come into terms with his past(yes, including the Dursleys) if he wishes to develop into a mature and social human being. >agdisney wrote: >I've read where some think that Madam Pince could be Snape's >mother. How about a thought that Filch could be his father? It's >stated that his father is a muggle - instead maybe a squib. When >Snape gets bitten by Fluffy in SS, he goes to Filch for help. Like >a child will go to a parent? If DD was trying to keep Snape's >parents safe from LV in the event that Snape gets caught, what >better place then Hogwarts? Also, they do go together to DD >funeral. Can this be? Expectopatronnie: I really fail to see the connection. Canon is that Snape's father was a Muggle and not a Squib. Furthermore, I don't think close phoenetics, such as in 'Pince' and 'Prince' suggest anything. Even in the incedent with Mark Evans, the *Identical* surname meant nothing. Expectopatronnie - tired and going to sleep. From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Oct 28 01:55:45 2005 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:55:45 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages was Spinner's End as home (wasRe: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142197 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Let's no get carried away and forget that Ron' statement had a > context. He said it in a conversation about 'purebloods', and his > point is that if purebloods only marry purebloods then wizard would > have died out, which is exactly what the book tells us about pureblood > families. > > There are more options and I believe that these options are what Ron > is referring to. For example, if Harry marries Ginny, that is not a > pureblood marriage even though both of them are magical beings. I > would call it a 'full-blood' marrage; the marriage of a not- pureblood > magical person to a pureblood magical person. Even if Ron marries > Hermione, Ron is marrying a magical person, BUT he is marrying into a > muggle family. My point is there are may options for marrying in the > wizard world the don't include magical/non-magical marriages. I'm not > excluding those, simply saying that the scope is bigger that > pureblood/pureblood and magical/muggle. > I agree, that is probably more often the case than a wizard marrying a muggle. For one thing, where would an adult wizard *meet* a muggle?? If s/he came from a muggle family and still had lots of muggle friends, then yes, but even that's questionable. They arrive at Hogwarts at age 11 and leave at age 17. I can't see any of our young witches and wizards leaving Hogwarts and then deciding to live regular muggle lives with muggle jobs and muggle friends. (I wouldn't!!) How boring! Allie From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 27 22:43:15 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:43:15 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142198 ---> Christina wrote: > > Can they? Who have we actually seen execute a successful AK? Expectopatronnie: "...that's Marlene McKinnon, she was killed two weeks after this was taken, *they* got her whole family... Benjy Fenwick, he copped it too, we only ever found bits of him... That's Edgar Bones... brother of Amelia Bones, *they* got him and his family' too ... Gideon Prewett, it took *five Death Eaters* to kill him and his brother Fabian... that's Dorcas Meadows, *Voldemort killed her personally*... " (Moody showing Harry the picture of the old Order, OotP, Bloomsbury edition, p. 158, my emphasis). Not to mention Amelia Bones, Emily Vance, Hannah Abott's mother and DD (HBP, only Bones is mentioned as probably being killed by VM personally). Harry doesn't see every AK that is made, so we don't either. But it seems a lot of DE know how to. For crying out loud - Sirius and Lupin almost did in PoA (aiming at the rat, of course). Also, a lot of people know about AK (most wizards, in fact), but do they know about Horcrux? Hagrid & Fudge both claim statements that suggest DD won't share with them this peice of information. Christina: >One would think that the AK spell would be > *all* the DE's would be casting. The fact that they didn't >suggests to me that casting AK is extremely difficult. ... > These are the baddest of the baddies > here- why is anything but AK's being sent around? Expectopatronnie: Because most of the battle, Harry's got the Prophecy, and the DE are only trying to get it safe, and stop Harry and his mates. They know perfectly well what will be the destiny of the Prophecy, should they AK any of Harry's friends! Christina: >Casting one requires an extraordinary amount of hatred and sadism. >Even after Harry witnesses Bella Lestrange > murder Sirius, he *still* only manages > to briefly knock Bellatrix off her feet. And that was just in >trying *Crucio*. Expectopatronnie: At last we agree on something. However, hatred and sadism is much more common (not only for DE, I bet Umbridge won't have a problem with this peice of magic). Horcrux are rare (even if not managed only by VM) - first of all because they require knowledge that goes beyond the common. Also, IMO it's a difficult spell to do. Christina, you say: > The only advantage in making a horcrux is a little temporary > immortality- Slughorn even says that death is usually preferable > to the sort of state one lives in after making horcruxes. > I think that's enough to explain why all killers don't have > horcrux (just as all people don't drink unicorn > blood when they are dying). but then you add: > > expectopatronnie: > > VM is less and less human with each killing, because it *ripps* > > the soul apart, regardless infinte math calculations. > > Christina: > > Which was the central point of my post. With each > killing,Voldemort ripped up his soul more and more. Expectopatronnie: So what is it that makes living unworthy - the killing (which ripps the soul appart), or encasing the ripped soul-parts in a horcrux? Why does this make matters worse? I think VM is in such an awful state because of his many killings (much more than 7, IMO), and not because of the Horcrux. I think the Horcrux is such an awfull spell, not because of what it does to your soul, but because in order to conjure it and give yourself some guarantee from death (closely related to immortality, but not quite), you have to sacrifice someone - you have to do an AK - the most terrible of the Unforgivable curse. (very much like drinking unicorn's blood!) M. Thitathan wrote: >Isn't it enough to assume that all the horcruxes contain soul >fragment with equal magical power and that Harry will have to get >rid of all of them before facing a LV that is just as magically >powerful as he was when all of his horcruxes were still intact? Expectopatronnie: Well, I'm not sure I understood what you meant, but if you mean that be the killings and the horcruxs, VM *soul* is being ripped/splitted over and over, but *not* his power - then I agree. This is also an answer to the so-called mathematical problem: IMO VM was weak after the rebound AK in 1981, and through some of the books (up until the end of GoF), not because of the splitting of his soul, but rather because of the lack of body for his mother-soul (no matter how distorted it is). Well, I hope I'm not getting all mixed up here, E. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 02:15:25 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:15:25 -0000 Subject: Magic-Muggle Marriages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lyraofjordan" wrote: > > lyraofjordan: > > > > But the fact that some witches/wizards can (apparenly) > disguise > > > > their magic enough to fall in love with, get engaged and marry > > > > someone before they reveal they are magical (to their spouses' > > > > astonishment) suggests wizards are much better at moving in > > muggle > > > > society than most of the pureblood wizards we've seen seem to > be. > > > > > > lealess: > > > Either that, or they (1) marry in haste, or (2) use magic's > little > > > helper (love potion). > > > > Ceridwen wrote: > > There's not much to dating, or at least there wasn't when people > > didn't move in together for a trial or a while... Lyra again: > > Well, I haven't been on the dating scene for years myself (for which > I am eternally grateful) Ceridwen: Same here! I wouldn't be a teen again, or even a young twenty, for anything! Lyra: > ...but try to imagine the average wizard in > the situations you've mentioned. Let's try to imagine Ron (a wiser > and hopefully more mature Ron than we see in HBP) on a date. * (snipping dating scenario)* Ceridwen: That's why I suggested that, maybe the early 1960s or before, it was probably easier for a witch than a wizard to go through the dating scene with a Muggle. So, I'd suspect that Merope, or Andromeda, or Eileen, would have an easier time dating a Muggle boy/man than a wizard of the same time period would have in dating a Muggle girl. I wondered if that might be why we see more witches married to Muggles than wizards married to Muggles. Girls weren't supposed to know about sports, and if they did, the smart ones were advised to pretend they didn't so the boy could show off. The boy would ask her what she wanted to see, and like the good little Muggle who read all the advice to the lovelorn columns, she would defer to him. She didn't have to drive, and she was supposed to let him do most of the talking. If she used magic at all on the date, it was probably to repair her make-up. Playing dumb and silent is easy if you're really culturally challenged. BTW, loved the scenario with Ron on a date with a Muggle! After (was it George?) made that comment about the Muggle girl in town, we might see some version of it, only with (George?) instead of Ron. Of course, nowadays, with people moving in with each other, it would be equally difficult for either witch or wizard. You might be able to pull off a Muggle act for an evening, but you're bound to use magic, and even get caught, when you're living together. The WW might see fewer cross-over marriages because of that, if the MoM doesn't allow disclosure until after marriage. Or, a lot of accidental sightings necessitating Obliviating the partner, or 'wand- point weddings', not because of pregnancy, but because the partner's been Obliviated enough and it would be dangerous to do it again. And, you would always have to take love into accout. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 02:49:45 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:49:45 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend Trio in PoA?/Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142200 > > Carol responds: > > Other posters have already shown that Snape did not hear the part > of > > Lupin's speech about PP being a rat, and he was unconscious when PP > > transformed. What he heard he could easily have interpreted as > further > > evidence that Lupin was helping the escaped murderer into the > school > > (not to mention that he knew quite well that the werewolf was > about to > > transform and endanger three students, which is probably why he > bound > > Lupin rather than Black. > > Alla: > I cannot answer for a_svirn, but I personally am inclined to agree that Snape did not hear the part of Lupin's speech about Peter being a rat. I don't think canon is THAT clear as others argued, since I think that Snape could have stood there earlier and show up at the moment a_svirn argued he did. But that is sort of irrelevant to what I am arguing, well not completely of course. I am speculating that it is unlikely that during his service as DE Snape did not hear anything about Peter, it just does not fit for me. Voldemort did not have that many DE in his service, no? It seems unlikely to me that they did not know each other. But this is of course just speculation. To sum up - of course, if Snape knew earlier, it does not matter when he showed up in the Shack, he already knew everything he needed to know. Carol: > > You're assuming that his motive in telling Fudge that the kids were > > confunded was to silence them. But why would he need to do that? He > > had rushed out to save them from a murderer and a werewolf, and he > > *did* conjure stretchers and take the three students and the man he > > thought was a murderer back to the school. > Alla: Why would he need to do that? Because Snape as I read him values his images as powerful wizard A LOT and it hurts his pride A LOT that kids were able to hit him. And I think it is debatable whether Snape rushed out to save kids from murderer and werewolf or to get a revenge on "murderer" and werewolf, which he hoped to get for many years and finally got his chance, IMO. And of course, why woud he bring students and Sirius to school is the easiest one to answer and I answered it in the past too. Snape's pride will be satisfied the most if he would get his revenge on Sirius the LEGAL way with as many people watching as possible. Of course, getting an Order of Merlin would be a nice bonus too. If he just fed Sirius and Remus to dementors in the forest, there is nobody who would know and nobody would give him even a big round of applauds. :-) I mean, kids would know , but surely they won't be grateful to Snape, since they know the truth and would know that Snape was executing two innocent men,not murderers. Fudge on the other hand is delighted to give Snape all the praise he craves, IMO. Yes, I absolutely understand why Snape brings Sirius to school and he does NOT get any cookies for that from me. > > Hickengruendler: > > > > I don't have PoA handy and can't look, so please correct me, if > I'm > > wrong. But didn't he admit, that they overpowered him? Sure, he > said > > that they were bewitched, but that doesn't change the fact, that > they > > knocked him off. Or was there something else he said? Alla: I am not sure whether I should correct you or not, because maybe we are interpreting differently the same scene. I am going to start quote close to the moment where Snape says that they are confunded. If I missed the point you are talking about, please correct me. "YOU HAVEN'T!" Harry yelled. "YOU'VE GOT THE WRONG MAN!" "Minister, listen, please," Hermione said; she had hurried to Harry's side and was gazing imploringly into Fudge's face. " I saw him too. It was Ron's rat, he's an Animagus, Pettigrew, I mean, and - --" " You see, Minister?" said Snape. " Confunded, both of them... Black's done very good job on them" - PoA, p.389, paperback I don't see anywhere in this quote Snape admitting that they overpowered him, because he claims that kids were confunded because they are telling tales, not because they knocked him out, no? On the next page Hermione "enlightens" Snape: "That was because you were knocked out, Professor!" said Hermione earnestly. "You didn't arrive in time to hear---" "Miss Granger, HOLD YOUR TONGUE" - p.390. I still don't see any "admission" on Snape behalf. It seems to me that he is too embarassed even to hear that he was knocked out from somebody else, especially he won't say it himself. Maybe I missed the quote you are talking about, if so please correct me. > > Hickengruendler: > > > > I actually think that fits. Wormtail was Voldie's secret spy, > > therefore I doubt he would show him to everyone. Not to mention > that > > Karkaroff said, that not every DE knew all his companions. On the > > other hand, the statement that some DE's were angry with Peter > > because they thought he betrayed him, contradicts this somewhat. > > Still, I would think Voldemort has enough sense not to tell too > many > > people, who his secret spy is. > > Alla: Good point about Voldie keeping Peter close to him, BUT you said it yourself , other DE did know, so I think my speculation that Snape may have known too is a reasonable one. Hmmm.... Voldie having enough sense, I am not so sure about. Remember, he did not have enough sense not to kill the boy who was tied to Gravestone right away, but istead untied him and decided to teach him proper duelling manners. :-) JMO, Alla, who tried to edit typos in this post. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 03:01:47 2005 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:01:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Graveyard, life-debt unpaid (moved from OT) In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40510271017w62b9cdbj954f52eb7a325226@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40510272001kccad61dy20cc01a8282da249@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142201 Kemper (to SSS)earlier: > I think you bring up a point that I haven't seen flushed out before. Wormtail at the Graveyard. He had most opportunity for redemption here, yet he faltered. He didn't even attempt to save Harry's life when LV was going to AK him. And it's not like LV cast it surprisingly. > Where is Wormtail?! Did he not hear any of this silly villian talk? I think he did hear it. Knowing the AK would be cast, Wormtail did nothing but watch. Carol responded: I think that Wormtail, who has just suffered an excruciating injury and is now dissolved in tears of joy and gratitude, is not paying much attention to Voldie's theatrics. And possibly the consequences for not fulfilling the life debt don't kick in because Harry doesn't actually die. I think, though, that his gratitude to LV is beginning to fade (he seems to have suffered from physical abuse at Voldie's hands and is willing to tolerate Snape's sneers rather than return to LV). ... - Kemper now: My understanding of the life-debt is that it's an old/ancient magic. So, I thought that Wormtail would be moved to act on the life-debt rather than /choosing/ to do so whether he's paying attention to his new, silver hand or not. Kemper, who's grateful for the combined post and who has wrote his third post for the day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 03:26:21 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:26:21 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142202 It may be possible that someone has speculated as to Mrs. Black being R.A.B. before, but possibly only as a name without any real exposition. Here is my spin on R.A.B. As readers of this piece you will be asked to make some leaps. I first began pondering on who R.A.B., as we all probably did, immediately after reading HBP. Like many others, and without first trawling the net, I came up with Regulus Black. Then, having read a few theories and pondered some more I came up with Mrs. Black. What follows is some reasoning behind this conclusion. My first reason is that based on all we know regarding JKR she loves to mislead we readers. That the answer would be so obvious I find unlikely. Regulus, I believe was involved and this should become clear in this post. Mrs. Black makes her first appearance in Chapter Four of OotP and is described: "The moth-eaten velvet curtains Harry had passed earlier had flown apart, but there was no door behind them. For a split second, Harry thought he was looking through a window, a window behind which an old woman in a black cap was screaming and screaming as though she were being tortured - then he realised it was simply a life-size portrait, but the most realistic, and the most unpleasant, he had ever seen in his life. The old woman was drooling, her eyes were rolling, the yellowing skin of her face stretched taut as she screamed; and all along the hall behind them, the other portraits awoke and began to yell, too, so that Harry actually screwed up his eyes at the noise and clapped his hands over his ears." This set some alarm bells ringing when I recently reread OotP. Why would the portrait be done in such a horrendous manner? Surely the subject of the portrait would want to be seen in a better light than she actually is. Then it occurred to me that Dumbledore's portrait appeared on the wall of his former office shortly after his death and without too much of a stretch I concluded that perhaps Mrs. Black's portrait appeared on the wall in the hall shortly after her death. The permanent sticking charm could easily have been placed on the spot prior to death, but it is important to this theory that the actual portrait appeared after death. The description of rolling eyes, yellowing skin and the matter of torture being mentioned suggested to me a more advanced state of poisoning than the point Dumbledore had reached atop the tower. It sounds to me like the condition somebody would be in at death if that death were caused by slow poisoning from the potion in the cave. (A leap). It would also account for the apparent vast difference in age between Sirius and his mother in that the potion has the effect of making the person drinking it look older than they are over time. My calculation is that Regulus died around 1980 and his mother in 1985 based on Sirius telling us she had died some 10 years prior to the events in OotP, that is if my memory serves. We are never told exactly how much younger than Sirius his brother Regulus is. What we do know, at least from Sirius, is that Regulus became a Death Eater and that Sirius was approximately 22 when he was sent to Azkaban. This would mean that at the time Regulus died Sirius was 21. Regulus was younger so we should ask: how much younger? I do not find it unrealistic to propose that Regulus had not reached the age of majority in the wizarding world. The precedent for a Death Eater being less than 17 has been set in canon by Draco. Before anyone disputes whether Draco was a Death Eater consider this from the Mugglenet / Leaky Cauldron Combined Interview of 16th July 2005, where JKR said: "But I thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done. So he's shut down his pity, enabling him to bully effectively. He's shut down compassion ? how else would you become a Death Eater?" Piecing it together I propose that Regulus was asked to do a job that was equaly irksome as Draco's in HBP but in Regulus's case he decided to back out rather than proceed. While he was a DE he came to know of LV's steps to secure him from death. Mrs. Black from this snippet of information garnered from her favourite boy, and possibly because she was at Hogwarts at the same time as LV, deduced that LV had made a Horcrux (note singular). She would have known of his roots and could have found out about the cave from inquiries with the orphanage. She then took Regulus with her to the cave and retrieved the heavy locket come across by Harry and co. in Chapter Six of OotP. Alternatively she took Kreacher with her some time after Regulus's death and died a lingering death by poison. Regulus is a favoured son as indicated by the Black family tapestry. Mrs. Black, despite her alleged approval of the Dark Arts, would want some form of vengeance for her only loyal boy. There is some evidence in canon that Mrs. Black was a gifted potioneer. Firstly is the permanent sticking charm that no-one in the Order seems able to remove, so it must be some strong glue! There is also mention of other potions and ingredients for the same around in Number Twelve Grimmaud Place. Two examples are the "ornate crystal bottle with a large opal set into the stopper, full of what Harry was quite sure was blood" (page 99, Bloomsbury hardback) and "a musical box that emitted a faintly sinister, tinkling tune when wound, and they all found themselves becoming curiously weak and sleepy" (page 108). Both suggest to this author potion activity. Mrs. Black would have been well able, if my suppositions are correct to replace the potion in the bowl at the cave. She then deteriorated into the woman pictured in the portrait and died alone and forgotten. Sirius misjudges another character, as he has been prone to do. R.I.P. Romula Andromeda Black? Goddlefrood From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 01:25:27 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: the Graveyard, life-debt unpaid (Lord of the Rings Spoiler) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051028012527.62007.qmail@web34903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142203 justcarol wrote: "Not redemption. He (Wormtail)'s just too unrepentant and too self-preserving to deserve redemption, not to mention the staggering number of deaths and other crimes that can be directly attributed to him (in contrast to Snape). But the life debt will be important and the silver hand is emphasized in the (extremely unflattering) description of him in "Spinner's End." He literally "gave his right hand" for the Dark Lord (a cruel play on words that Voldemort actually makes before PP can possibly understand it) and he seems to treasure it (rather like Gollum's "Precious"). He has also sworn eternal gratitude and loyalty in return for it (graveyard scene, GoF), which clashes rather dramatically with that life debt." CH3ed: I think Wormtail will repay Harry in a big way (voluntarily or NOT) in Book 7, but I think it will have more to do with the demise of LV rather than Grayback. I think the gleam of triumph in DD's eyes came right after he heard that Wormtail pierced Harry's arm to draw blood to resurrect LV. So there must be something significant in that the person who owes Harry his life gave life back to LV. Carol pointed to a lot of things that sound so similar to Lord of the Rings story which I do find intriguing (tho a part of my brain insists that JKR doesn't model her story after other tales)... Wormtail is quite similar to Wormtongue (whose life Gandalf spared when he convinced the Kind of Rohan to allow to go back to Saruman (who was by then known as the White Hand). Frodo also spared Wormtongue's life at Bags' End, and it was Saruman's own words that caused Wormtongue to snapped and killed him. CH3ed...who is wondering how PP got sorted into Gryffindor and not Slytherin? From dossett at lds.net Fri Oct 28 03:48:43 2005 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:48:43 -0000 Subject: Spinner's End as home (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lyraofjordan" wrote: > > I can also envision Severus growing up in a muggle neighborhood, > being the local weird kid, with all the teasing that that entails. I > would expect he hoped all that would stop when he got to Hogwarts, > (and then he found out rich, pureblood kids could be just as nasty > as poor muggle kids). Pat now: The parallels with Harry here are remarkable. He also grew up in a Muggle neighborhood, being the local weird kid (thanks to Dudley!), with all the teasing - and loneliness - that that entailed. He also expected that all that would stop when he got to Hogwarts, and then he met Draco! Just food for thought - thanks, Lyra. Thanks for listening, Pat From erikog at one.net Fri Oct 28 05:43:14 2005 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 05:43:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142205 I'm so excited about these fantastic questions! But I'm away from? home on research, ergo I don't have my text in hand, so I'm? begging your pardon in advance about not having specific quotes for? you.? 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she? suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over? her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger? happy, or is it just Bella? I think this established: 1.) The life-or-death stakes surrounding the meeting, given that Bella IS? ready to kill first and think later--in other words, a tension-builder; 2.) A character clue about Bella, that she *will* kill even an innocent? animal and not have the slightest grief; 3.) A larger metaphor for what's about to happen between Snape? and Bella, that because of her unthinking recklessness, Snape, "the fox," ?is going to come to harm. (Likewise with the whole "Spinner's End" ?title, but that can be read on so many levels it is almost useless for ?arguing the meaning of the chapter.) 2. The neighborhood sounds deserted, except for some streetlights? that are still lit and the presence of food wrappers at the river's? edge. What can our RW sociologists tell us about this neighborhood in? the late 90's? The shock I felt was not that Snape--I want to say "came from," but? to avoid the whole childhood home argument, I'll say "is attached to" --a pitiful little house vs. Snape Manor of Lord!Snape fanfictions, ?but that he's attached to an area so obviously *industrial* and *modern*.? If the first chapter didn't do the job successfully, this one hammers on? the same theme: there is no line of delineation between the Wizard? and Muggle worlds anymore. This creates a contemporary sense in ?the story and helps to rev up the overall anxiety level in the text, I think.? 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by? surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She? calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever? set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long? do you think Snape has been using this location? I agree with all of those who have argued Snape likely *wouldn't*? bring any of his Slytherin peers around to a Muggle home. (If this is ?his childhood home, which I tend to think it is, just because the poor? man?hasn't had a lot of time to go cruising for real estate, shall we say, ?he's?*definitely* not one to let go of the past easily, and if he wants? a place?apart from Hogwarts and the whole wizarding world, this suits. ?Plus,?the books. No bibliophile in his right mind moves his library? around lightly.)?It's very believable that Snape wouldn't have just anybody ?around,?if he didn't like his homelife much. Harry's only had Dumbledore? to?the Dursleys', and a crash visit by the Weasleys, right? Nobody he? invited,?and he has much less reason to fear a critical backlash? from his friends.? I would also point out that Bella is older than Snape and between that? and considering the fact she has nothing else in common with Snape? other than Slytherin, therefore likely wouldn't have been on his home? invite list even if he *had* one.? It's certainly telling about the closeness of their relationship--or should ?I say, lack thereof--that Bella says "our kind" about Snape--given her? fanaticism about Voldemort and anti-Snape feelings, you'd think she? would be the first to say something nasty about his background here. My bet is that Snape set up shop there sometime as an adult and not? full-time. (Hence the only things in the house of a personal nature? are his books, which are all in the front room, giving a sense that he ?hasn't quite "entered" the house himself, to ditch his stuff in the front ?room.) I'm betting he took up slightly active residence there when? he needed a place to hang out with Malfoy etc. away from Hogwarts-- can't be seen together too often at the local TGI Friday's, y'know.? Plus, Malfoy can't come visit over at Hogwart's, and it wouldn't look ?good (either to Dumbledore, if he didn't know, or to Voldie, if he ?believed Snape was trying to be a good spy and *not* let Dumbledore ?know) if Snape was actually *seen* as a constant guest at Malfoy? Manor, especially at sensitive moments.? 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and? contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It? had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for? someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or? the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is? his usual home away from Hogwarts? I've answered part of this above, but I'll add, I wanted to yell, "Yes!"? at the sight of all those books. Arguments aside, just from my heart, I? have to say I can't believe JKR is going to make an unspeakable villain ?out of somebody who is so clearly a book nut.? As for the "padded cell" comment--I think this *is* a cage of sorts for? Snape. It represents his life as a spy, with PP in turn spying on *him*.? It takes him, and us, back to the little boy shooting flies in his bedroom, ?suffering from neglect and boredom. (And gives us the additional? image that not only is Snape "locked in," but he doesn't have a lot of? space to move anymore, again giving us a sense of urgency.) Not only? is Snape stuck in a life that really gives him the options of just life or? death (compare to the Malfoys, who at least have family), he has to? wait this situation out from, of all places, a site that probably represents ?(even if it isn't the actual place) a pretty hateful part of his life, for him. 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice? and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the? feeling of a padded cell.? What does that tell us about Narcissa? ? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? Just desperation, desperation throughout. I get the sense that? everybody?in that room is desperate for some reason. (Someone had a problem with Narcissa's nickname; I'd just throw ?in I?didn't think it was too sugary. She IS the baby of her family, and? her name is Narcissa--there aren't a lot of ways, otherwise, to expect? them to shorten it. I think the use of the nickname is JKR jerking us a? bit by the collar, to remind us, a la Dumbledore, that even our villains? in this piece *are* human.)? 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm? not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point... Do you think this was just? setting the magical mood, or was JKR waving a flag? I vote mood (vampire, the fates that befall humans trying to be too? tricky,?various myths--didn't Isole fall in love with Tannhauser via? a spiked?wine?), an attempt on Snape's part to play Suave!Snape,? and perhaps an?attempt to portray himself in a good supremacist? light by having wine?made by a group held to be subservient.? (Can you imagine Hermione?willingly drinking elf-made wine?? Unless she personally paid the elves?for it?) 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?? I can't come back to the text to pinpoint anything, but I thought ?the whole chapter made a wonderful piece to read on a stormy? night. It was chock-full of melodrama! (In a good way.) Which? brings me to mention something I haven't seen before on this list:? HBP strikes me as different from the other books because it is? verging on what I'd call opera at times. I don't think we've ever? seen anything as dramatic and powerful in an extended fashion? in the series as the whole Tower/Snape retreat sequence in the? other books. (Esp. the whole Harry/Snape exchange.) My guess? for why this stylistic change takes place is because we *are*? reaching The End, and JKR is setting us up not just for the big? bang to end the story, but the big bang to send off her themes, too. ?Whereas we had breakout moments of drama before, JKR has? been holding back on us to close Book Seven with the? power the series deserves.? 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella? is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and? is obviously very serious. We've seen that magical contracts have? serious consequences--the Goblet of Fire in GoF, and the SNEAK hex in? OoP. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, but is this? just Business as Usual in the Wizarding World? How does this vow? compare to magical deals in fairy tales and myths? I think JKR uses this UV to raise our anxiety level and bring us, like? Harry, to a more adult viewpoint: some things *can't* be undone.? 9.?Narcissa, Bellatrix, Snape, and Wormtail (if? we're counting vermin) are presented from the third-person dramatic? or third-person objective point of view, meaning that they are seen from the outside with a? minimum of commentary and no direct insight into their thoughts. It's? as if both the narrator and the reader are invisible, silent witnesses to the scene,? I had a sense that we *did* have a sort-of narrator in the scene, in the? form of Bella. If I recall correctly, although the narrator doesn't? speak in Bella's voice, we seem to have a greater knowledge? of Bella's feelings than of any of the other characters. If I? could compare this to a movie, the camera would be? moving right over Bella's shoulder. (And I think *that* is? because she is, like us, and like Harry in his scenes,? generally the outsider, the one with incomplete knowledge.)? 10. 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? I love the fact you pointed out here that all three move around? sets of guests/visitors. And I think you've caught the important? point by mentioning that "Will & Won't" takes us into a more? humorous mood--between the three of them, they effectively? re-introduce us to the world of HP, jack up the tension level, and? then bring us back down to a workable level of dramatic tension? for the "ordinary," humorous HP text. Krista From mary.hoerr at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 06:15:14 2005 From: mary.hoerr at gmail.com (maryh10000) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 06:15:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142206 All quotes are from "potioncat" There has been quite a bit of discussion on these questions already, so I will only respond to the ones where I haven't seen my point of view expressed. > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It > had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for > someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or > the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is > his usual home away from Hogwarts? I think JKR is using these terms to color our perception of Snape and the location. Snape's appearance is always described negatively. Meeting him at "home", his home is also dark and confining, like the man. What thoughts would we have had about Snape if JKR had described the room as "a cozy library, stuffed with books from floor to ceiling, furnished with sofa and armchair, neglected but comfortable." Snape is a bookish loner. His sitting room looks exactly how you would expect it look. I bring up the point because JKR consistently distracts us from what Snape actually DOES with her scene setting, descriptions, and negative POV characters (the latter not the case in this chapter). We are always set up to distrust Snape, and she continues the setup here. > > 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? I thought "Finally! We get to see Snape in something more like his natural element." However, with Pettigrew spying, and a DE and the wife of a DE visiting him, I changed my mind to think we're just seeing the side he shows to DE's. > 8. Narcissa asks Snape to make an Unbreakable Vow and Bella > is "astonished" that he agrees. It looks like a wedding ceremony, and > is obviously very serious. None of us can really understand why Snape agreed, I have a theory about this I haven't seen anybody else bring up (my apologies if I missed it). I think that Snape's strategy in this scene is to discredit Bella and get her in trouble with LV. I don't think Snape has stopped Pettigrew from listening -- in fact I think he's counting on it, and counting on Pettigrew telling LV everything that happened. Note that before we get to the part with the UV, Snape has already had Bella confessing that she thinks LV is "mistaken" about something (trusting Snape), and she as much as admits that Snape must be a better at Occlumency than LV is a Legilmency. In the UV itself, though, Snape has gone further to make Bella an active participant in something that LV may not approve of. Narcissa clearly thinks she is going around LV to get protection of her son. Snape agrees with her that LV probably gave Draco the task because he wanted to punish the Malfoys for Lucius' failures, and expects (maybe wants?) Draco to be killed. Snape also mentions that if Snape carries out the task, Snape will no longer be able to be a spy for LV at Hogwarts. Bella, who appears not to be in such good standing with LV as she used to be, has to wonder whether LV would approve of this UV. In a sense, it could be that Snape trapped Bella with the UV as well as ending up trapped himself. If this is was what Snape was aiming for, then he would have to have known what the task was, and to have known that LV would not actually be upset if he took this vow. This is hinted at where Snape says that he thinks the Dark Lord intends Snape to do it in the end. Otherwise, Snape would be in as much trouble by LV hearing about the UV as Bella would be. I do think that Snape was not expecting the third part of the vow, and would have rethought his strategy if he had anticipated it. Whether he originally intended on killing DD or not, he would not want to have his options limited by such a vow. However, I think he figured he'd come up with some way around it. If he's DDM or OFH, the best way might just be getting rid of LV. If LV is dead, perhaps Draco no longer has to perform his task, so Snape no longer has to make sure the task is successful. In addition, I don't think Snape ever told DD about the UV. Snape is proud enough not to want to tell DD about his mistake with the third part of the vow, and thinks enough of his own skills to think he'll be able to find a way around it on his own. I strongly feel that the UV is usually done in three parts, from the way it is presented, which is why I think Snape didn't even tell DD those parts. DD would have asked about the third part. By not bringing up the first two parts (which are not so important anyway), Snape doesn't put himself in the position of having to lie to DD, which he probably tries to avoid if at all possible. So I come to the opposite conclusion of every poster I have read so far: LV knew about the full UV (through Pettigrew), and DD heard second hand about part of the UV, if he knew about it all (and not through Snape). Maryh -- attempting my first post here From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 06:42:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 06:42:41 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ronnie" wrote: > Expectopatronnie: > > So what is it that makes living unworthy - the killing (which ripps > the soul appart), or encasing the ripped soul-parts in a horcrux? > Why does this make matters worse? > bboyminn: Overal, I don't disagree with the general points you made, but you are overlooking one critical point in the statement above. Perhaps, I am missing your central point, but here is my take on the harm done by Horcruxes. It's not that act of creating a Horcrux that harms you, it's separating yourself from part of your soul. You can kill a thousand times, and those thousand pieces of broken soul are still part of you. Certianly, you have done yourself spiritual harm, but not as badly as when you start removing pieces of soul from yourself, which is exaclty what you do when you create a Horcrux. Not only do you damage part of your soul in the act of murder, but you lose part of your soul in the creation of the Horcrux, and in losing, becoming separated from, part of your soul, you lose a degree of your humanity. Also, I don't think that only the Horcruxes are protecting Voldemort. He implies himself that he has tried many things to insure his mortal life. I suspect that the Horcruxes are the most important and most critical, but I suspect a great degree of his 'snake-like' appearance is do to these other 'attempts' at immortality. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From missvassy at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 06:53:30 2005 From: missvassy at yahoo.com (missvassy) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 06:53:30 -0000 Subject: Has Professor Trelawney been kidnapped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" lucianam73 at y...wrote: I'm sorry if anyone has posted this before. I think Professor Trelawney might have been kidnapped under Voldemort's orders during the Death Eaters invasion of Hogwarts, while everybody was busy in the Astronomy Tower. While things were going on in the Astronomy Tower, better and more able people (Bellatrix? Voldemort himself?) were in the North Tower kidnapping Trelawney _ in my opinion. ***************************** While I like this theory, I cannot think of any reason they would want to kidnap Trelawny. This is something I never understood. I didn't understand why Trelawney would be in danger outside the walls of Hogwarts after Voldemort had already tried to kill Harry and realized that he hadn't herd the whole thing. What good would knowing the whole thing be? We know the whole prophesy and I can't honestly see what information derived from it could be useful. *Voldemort would know that neither could live while the other survives, right? Well, it isn't like he isn't planning on keeping Harry around anyway. He wants to kill him, so that part is pretty much moot. *Voldemort would know that he marked him as an equal. Well, this doesn't really give him much except to know he is fighting with a formidable enemy which I think he has probably figured out since Harry has already escaped his grasp 4 times. I might be missing a huge, glaring point and I would love to be enlightened. I think if Voldemort did kidnap Trelawny, he is going to be pretty disappointed. All that info was important before he tried to kill Harry and not now. Lis P.S. But I still love this theory. It would be a great comic moment if, after hearing the entire prophecy, he says, "What!?! That's it?!?! I could have used THAT info 17 years ago!" From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 28 09:10:47 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:10:47 -0000 Subject: Has Professor Trelawney been kidnapped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "missvassy" wrote: > > While I like this theory, I cannot think of any reason they would > want to kidnap Trelawny. This is something I never understood. I > didn't understand why Trelawney would be in danger outside the walls > of Hogwarts after Voldemort had already tried to kill Harry and > realized that he hadn't herd the whole thing. > > What good would knowing the whole thing be? We know the whole > prophesy and I can't honestly see what information derived from it > could be useful. Hickengruendler: I think there are two possible reasons. First, not matter how important or unimportant the other part of the prophecy is, Voldemort does not know it. It is enough that he thinks it might be important. And of course there's always the possibility that Trelawney will make another prediction. And in this case, I guess Voldemorts wants to have her with him. Hickengruendler, who thinks Trelawney would drive the Death Eaters mad, before they could even use the Unforgivables on her From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 11:05:36 2005 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:05:36 -0000 Subject: Annoying interruptions... + Fawkes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142210 Bloomsbury p 458 (After the Burial), Slughorn: "But then...my dear boy... you're asking a great deal... you're asking me, in fact to aid you in your attempt to destroy - " Harry (interrupting): "You don't want to get rid of the wizard who killed Lily Evans?" Slughorn: "Harry, Harry, of course I do, but -" Harry (again interrupting): "You're scared he'll find out you helped me?" Slughorn said nothing; he looked terrified. -- Oh well. Would Slughorn indeed have finished that first sentence with "Voldemort"? Because of Harry's interruption, we don't know.... If Slughorn didn't mean to end his sentence with 'Voldemort' - what else might he have said instead? And what's with the 'but'? Is it as simple as Harry's conclusion, that Slughorn is scared Voldemort will find out he told Harry and punish him (Slughorn)? Or did he mean to say something very different, had Harry not interrupted the 'but' ? I don't know - and I certainly don't have the answer - but I'd surely like to have heard Slughorn's finishing those two sentences without Harry's interruptions.... :-) Inge PS! On a sidenote. It's been discussed if Fawkes and Snape have been seen together - and if Fawkes in that case has been acting 'distrusting' towards Snape. Personally I can't recall any moment when Fawkes and Snape are both seen together (might be wrong though?). Could it be that Snape IS Fawkes? Animagus maybe? Is that the reason Dumbledore never doubts Snape's loyalty? Just one of those silly thoughts.... ya' know! From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 11:10:08 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:10:08 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142211 > colebiancardi: >> really? I wish I had PoA on me right now. I was under the > impression that Snape never heard that PP was an animagus; that he > only heard about the Prank and then appeared in the doorway. > a_svirn: Well, you are wrong here, he came in when Lupin started his tale. That's when the door cricked and the kids suggested that that was because the place was haunted. So he stayed and listened the whole story about the Marauders becoming animagi. > colebiancardi: > And I never got the impression that Snape was going to hand over > Sirius to the dementors by himself. I was under the impression that > Sirius would be turned over to MoM and they would determine Sirius's > fate. a_svirn: Perhaps the film's contamination? In the book Snape left no room for interpretation: "Up to the castle?" said Snape silkily. "I don't think we need to go that far. All I have to do is call the dementors once we get out of the Willow. They'll be very pleased to see you, Black... pleased enough to give you a little kiss, I daresay..." Besides, if that were the case, why would the Trio attack him? > colebiancardi: >As far as silencing the Trio, it could be that Snape was embarrassed > by the whole event in the shack; a_svirn: Don't you think that he choose a very strange strategy to avoid the "embarrassment"? He exposed himself as unbalanced not to say deranged person before the minister. Surely it was even more embarrassing? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 11:32:00 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:32:00 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142212 > Carol: > Other posters have already shown that Snape did not hear the part of > Lupin's speech about PP being a rat, and he was unconscious when PP > transformed. What he heard he could easily have interpreted as further > evidence that Lupin was helping the escaped murderer into the school > (not to mention that he knew quite well that the werewolf was about to > transform and endanger three students, which is probably why he bound > Lupin rather than Black. a_svirn: I don't know about other posters, but in the chapter 18 "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" Snape entered in the beginning of the chapter when the door cricked: " Lupin broke off. There had been a loud creak behind him. The bedroom door had opened of its own accord. All five of them stared at it. Then Lupin strode toward it and looked out into the landing. "No one there..." "This place is haunted!" said Ron. "It's not," said Lupin, still looking at the door in a puzzled way. "The Shrieking Shack was never haunted.... The screams and howls the villagers used to hear were made by me." That as you remember was the very beginning of his story. Which means that Snape stood there and listened the whole tale about animagi. > Carol: > You're assuming that his motive in telling Fudge that the kids were > confunded was to silence them. But why would he need to do that? He > had rushed out to save them from a murderer and a werewolf, and he > *did* conjure stretchers and take the three students and the man he > thought was a murderer back to the school. a_svirn: He didn't worry about Fudge, he worried about Dumbledore. He didn't want Sirius anywhere near Dumbledore, and he didn't want him to listen to the kids ether, because he didn't want Dumbledore to know the truth . As for stretches what they have to do with anything? He couldn't very well kill Sirius, not with his record as ex-DE, and his original plan ? to hand Sirius to the Dementors at the Willow ? didn't work, since Harry's Patronus made the Dementors to leave. > Carol: > Maybe Snape asked himself that same question: Why would three students > knock out a teacher who had come to save them? And maybe the only > answer that made sense to him was that they had been confunded. a_svirn: Perhaps. I have a better opinion of his intellect, however > Carol: In any > case, it *is* likely that HRH would have been punished or even > expelled for attacking a teacher, and Snape saves them from whatever > punishment they would have received, whether he is lying to protect > them or telling what he perceives to be the truth. I see no need > whatever to lie to protect himself. (It's rashness worthy of James > himself to rush out to face both a werewolf and a supposed mass > murderer, but it's hardly something he needs to cover up.) a_svirn: Hey, it's Snape we are talking about, remember? From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 28 11:49:01 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:49:01 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142214 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > colebiancardi: > >> really? I wish I had PoA on me right now. I was under the > > impression that Snape never heard that PP was an animagus; that he > > only heard about the Prank and then appeared in the doorway. > > > a_svirn: > Well, you are wrong here, he came in when Lupin started his tale. > That's when the door cricked and the kids suggested that that was > because the place was haunted. So he stayed and listened the whole > story about the Marauders becoming animagi. > colebiancardi: Well, I did stated I didn't have PoA on me at that momemt. However, I do know. The loud creak when the bedroom door open(Snape entering) happens after Lupin mentions Peter was the one who betrayed them(p. 552 Am Ed Hardcover). Lupin then discusses his trials as a werewolf and then how James, Siruis & Peter all became Animagi to keep Lupin company. He does mention that Peter was called Wormtail. However, Snape never heard the bit about Peter being the spy, nor the night at Godric's Hollow, nor Sirius's innocence. The last thing before Snape revealed himself to the room, was Lupin talking about the Prank and Harry stating "So that's why Snape doesn't like you,...because he thought you were on the joke?" p.357 But nowhere in Lupin's speech, from the time the bedroom door opened to the end of the chapter does Lupin talk about Peter being the one who killed Harry's parents. > > colebiancardi: > > And I never got the impression that Snape was going to hand over > > Sirius to the dementors by himself. I was under the impression > that > > Sirius would be turned over to MoM and they would determine > Sirius's > > fate. > > a_svirn: > Perhaps the film's contamination? In the book Snape left no room for > interpretation: > > "Up to the castle?" said Snape silkily. "I don't think we need to go > that far. All I have to do is call the dementors once we get out of > the Willow. They'll be very pleased to see you, Black... pleased > enough to give you a little kiss, I daresay..." > > Besides, if that were the case, why would the Trio attack him? Nope, not film contamination at all. p. 359 "Two more for Azkaban tonight," said Snape, his eyes gleaming fanatically. "I shall be interested to see how Dumbledore takes this...He was quite convinced you were harmless, you know, Lupin...a tame werewolf -" "You fool," said Lupin softly. "Is a schoolboy grunge worth putting an innocent man back inside Azkaban?" So, Snape didn' mention bringing Sirius & Lupin directly to the dementors, but to Azkaban. And also, the "give me a reason" line was when Sirius started towards Snape and Snape pointed his wand at him. Had nothing to do with dementors - perhaps Snape was going to either kill or hurt Sirius. However, Snape does, on the next page, threaten Sirius that they don't have to wait until the castle, but he(snape) could call the dementors directly, once outside of the Willow(your passage). Since Snape is one of those rule-followers, I am sure this was just a taunt to Sirius, as he DID mention Azkaban - at least that is how I read it. Snape was a bit unhinged in this scene - Rowling describes him as having a mad glint in his eye, he seemed beyond reason, shrieking. > > > colebiancardi: > >As far as silencing the Trio, it could be that Snape was > embarrassed > > by the whole event in the shack; > > a_svirn: > Don't you think that he choose a very strange strategy to avoid > the "embarrassment"? He exposed himself as unbalanced not to say > deranged person before the minister. Surely it was even more > embarrassing? > Have you ever been so angry, felt so misunderstood, felt cheated of something that you knew you were right about that it doesn't matter what other people think about you? I have - trust me, it ain't pretty. Anger is an emotion where there is no logical reasons why we act the way we do. and at this point, I don't think Snape was thinking about strategy..... colebiancardi (glad to have PoA in front of me now - but not for long, I have to go to work..) From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 08:55:20 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:55:20 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142215 sweety12783 wrote: > "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have > power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the > hand of the other for neither can live while the other > survives . . ." I think that the statement means that the one > marked as an equal will have to die by the hand of the other in > order for LV to be fully mortal (hence "... for neither can live > while the other survives...) Expectopatronnie: I'm not sure Harry has to die inorder to kill VM. I don't know where I've read this, but someone said somewhere that "neither can live while the other survives" means that right now, neither Harry nor VM are living to a full extent. They are both only surviving - keeping their heads over the water - but that's not living! One of the two (either) will have to die (must die)... in order for the other to start living again (both stopped fully living when VM marked Harry back in 1981). Sweety12783 also wrote: > It also explains why Dumbledore told Harry to tell Ron and > Hermione about what was going on. DD knew that Ron and Hermione > would not let Harry do this mission by himself but most > importantly he knew that if they were to figure out what had to be > done and harry sacrifed himself and be killed by LV (making LV > fully mortal) then the remaining two could continue and AK > Voldemort since Harry will not be able to. Expectopatronnie: I really doubt that: If DD knows Harry will have to be sacrificed in order to kill VM, then he could have killed VM while possessing Harry at the MoM in OotP. Sweety12783: > Why did DD have a look of triumph when Harry told him about LV > taking his blood for the potion in GOF. Expectopatronnie: I thought it was because of the blood full of love which will weaken VM. But now I really don't know: If VM has blood from Harry, how come he couldn't bear possessing Harry in OotP? E. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 12:05:17 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:05:17 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142216 > > colebiancardi: But nowhere in Lupin's speech, from the time the bedroom door opened > to the end of the chapter does Lupin talk about Peter being the one > who killed Harry's parents. a_svirn: I hadn't said that Snape leaned about Pettigrew being a secret- keeper from Lupin. On the contrary I had said that he already knew *that*. What he didn't know was their animagi secret. He stayed and listened the story until his curiosity was satisfied and then proceeded with his revenge. > > colebiancardi: > Nope, not film contamination at all. p. 359 "Two more for Azkaban > tonight," said Snape, his eyes gleaming fanatically. "I shall be > interested to see how Dumbledore takes this...He was quite convinced > you were harmless, you know, Lupin...a tame werewolf -" > "You fool," said Lupin softly. "Is a schoolboy grunge worth putting > an innocent man back inside Azkaban?" > > So, Snape didn' mention bringing Sirius & Lupin directly to the > dementors, but to Azkaban. And also, the "give me a reason" line was > when Sirius started towards Snape and Snape pointed his wand at him. > Had nothing to do with dementors - perhaps Snape was going to either > kill or hurt Sirius. > > However, Snape does, on the next page, threaten Sirius that they don't > have to wait until the castle, but he(snape) could call the dementors > directly, once outside of the Willow(your passage). Since Snape is > one of those rule-followers, I am sure this was just a taunt to > Sirius, as he DID mention Azkaban - at least that is how I read it. > Snape was a bit unhinged in this scene - Rowling describes him as > having a mad glint in his eye, he seemed beyond reason, shrieking. > a_svirn: I am sincerely puzzled how you can call a DE "rule-follower"? Not to mention a man who is notorious for his blatant favouritism? Granted, he kept trying to nail Harry for rule infractions but that was just one of the many means to bring him down. Besides, there was no question about rule-breaking in this instant. Sirius was already sentenced to the kiss ad absentia. And, finally, WHY would the Trio attack him, if all he wanted to is to bring a criminal for the interrogation? That doesn't make sense. a_svirn From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 28 12:20:53 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:20:53 -0000 Subject: Did Snape defend trio at the end of PoA? /Are appearances important to Snap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > > > colebiancardi: > > But nowhere in Lupin's speech, from the time the bedroom door > opened > > to the end of the chapter does Lupin talk about Peter being the one > > who killed Harry's parents. > > a_svirn: > I hadn't said that Snape leaned about Pettigrew being a secret- > keeper from Lupin. On the contrary I had said that he already knew > *that*. What he didn't know was their animagi secret. He stayed and > listened the story until his curiosity was satisfied and then > proceeded with his revenge. > > but Snape never learned that Peter was Scabbers or even a rat Animagi. That wasn't even mentioned. Just that Peter was the smallest of them and his name was wormtail. Or does that not matter? Also, I would be interested in hearing your theory on why you think Snape knew that PP was the secret-keeper. I don't believe Snape knows the other spys for LV, let alone a secret-keeper. > > colebiancardi: > > Nope, not film contamination at all. p. 359 "Two more for Azkaban > > tonight," said Snape, his eyes gleaming fanatically. "I shall be > > interested to see how Dumbledore takes this...He was quite > convinced > > you were harmless, you know, Lupin...a tame werewolf -" > > "You fool," said Lupin softly. "Is a schoolboy grunge worth putting > > an innocent man back inside Azkaban?" > > > > So, Snape didn' mention bringing Sirius & Lupin directly to the > > dementors, but to Azkaban. And also, the "give me a reason" line > was > > when Sirius started towards Snape and Snape pointed his wand at > him. > > Had nothing to do with dementors - perhaps Snape was going to > either > > kill or hurt Sirius. > > > > However, Snape does, on the next page, threaten Sirius that they > don't > > have to wait until the castle, but he(snape) could call the > dementors > > directly, once outside of the Willow(your passage). Since Snape is > > one of those rule-followers, I am sure this was just a taunt to > > Sirius, as he DID mention Azkaban - at least that is how I read it. > > Snape was a bit unhinged in this scene - Rowling describes him as > > having a mad glint in his eye, he seemed beyond reason, shrieking. > > > a_svirn: > I am sincerely puzzled how you can call a DE "rule-follower"? Not to > mention a man who is notorious for his blatant favouritism? Granted, > he kept trying to nail Harry for rule infractions but that was just > one of the many means to bring him down. An ex-DE, please - thank you very much. And yes, look at Snape's behavior in the first 3 books - he is very much a rule follower. and at this point in the books, we don't know that Snape was a Death Eater, let alone know what the word DE is. He is a big rule follower - we only see him at this point, thru Harry's POV. sure, Snape takes away points from Gryfinndor, but do we ever see him add points to his own house? I can't remember one time. It is one thing to show favouritism, another to reward it. He has never rewarded his own house with points. > > Besides, there was no question about rule-breaking in this instant. > Sirius was already sentenced to the kiss ad absentia. And, finally, > WHY would the Trio attack him, if all he wanted to is to bring a > criminal for the interrogation? That doesn't make sense. > a_svirn > Because at this point, there is no reasoning with Snape - the Trio honestly believes that Snape will carry out his threat. Remember, Sirius *snarled* at Snape and taunted him - "The joke's on you again, Severus", Black snarled. "As long as this boy brings his rat up to the castle" - he jerked his head at Ron - "I'll come quietly..." "Up to the castle?" said Snape silkily. "I don't think we need to go that far..." etc p 350 Am Ed Hardcover sounds like their old grudges and tauntings that they used to do to one another back in school. Only this time, Snape has the upper hand and he is relishing it. The Trio realizes that Snape does have the upper hand, they believe Snape at his word(not realizing, as we didn't at the time either, I might add, there was so much more to the backstory) and they wanted to hear the rest of the story. Remember, Harry is not yet convinced that Black is the good guy at this point(p.364-365). Harry is willing to give Lupin & Sirius a chance to hear what they have to say. And he even states on p 364 that he should have let Snape take them. So, Snape *thinks* he knows the full story, based on past experiences and his own involvement back in 1981 with the Order. The Trio do not. I never read into this more than the revenge story, which in OotP, is explained further why Snape is the way he is towards Sirius and Lupin. DD only told Harry in PoA that Snape was angry because of the life-debt - we later discover that it was much deeper and more complex than just than than. colebiancardi From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 09:42:36 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:42:36 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142218 > bboyminn wrote: > You can kill a thousand times, and those thousand pieces of broken > soul are still part of you. Certianly, you have done yourself > spiritual harm, but not as badly as when you start removing pieces of > soul from yourself, which is exaclty what you do when you create a > Horcrux. Not only do you damage part of your soul in the act of > murder, but you lose part of your soul in the creation of the Horcrux, > and in losing, becoming separated from, part of your soul, you > lose a degree of your humanity. expectopatronnie: I don't understand it that way: IMO when you kill you're ripping your soul, and not merely damaging it. The ripped pieces evaporate into thin air, unless you encase them with a horcrux. I really don't think the actual making of the Horcrux increases the damage to your soul E. From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Fri Oct 28 10:11:08 2005 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:11:08 -0000 Subject: Way OT: 12 Grimmauld Place Appearance? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142219 >From "M. Thitathan:" No snips, but a gist: the confusing appearance and disappearance of a whole house, and the numbering problems arising from it. Deborah: What about the street numbers next door? I've never lived in a London square, but I suspect that the numbers run consecutively around it, 1 next to 2 next to 3 ... not 1 next to 3 and then 2 and 4 etc across the road. And who wants to live in number 13? (Actually, why wouldn't the Blacks? Oh well.) Surprisingly often you find 12 and 12(a) ... so a little confusion is built in and easy to account for if, in spite of all magical obstacles, you stop to think ... the (a) of 12(a) could be of varying intensity even, visible to its occupants and the postie but not really noticeable to the public. And then you'd have 11 and 12 but no 13, and no missing house either. Deborah, missing England and humming the Postman Pat song From ornawn at 013.net Fri Oct 28 12:00:18 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:00:18 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142220 Carol wrote: > It's rashness worthy of James himself to rush out to face both a > werewolf and a supposed mass murderer, but it's hardly something he > needs to cover up.) I think, he has something to cover up - Since Snape rushed out, because he had spotted Lupin and Sirius on the Marauder's map, he should have also noticed Peter Pettigrew there, like Lupin did. He might have been in a hurry, concerned with the Wolfsbane potion, sweet revenge on Sirius etc., and so not registering this fact. But it seems more probably to imply, that he either wasn't surprised by this fact, and was eager to keep this information unknown for dark reasons. I don't know if those dark reasons have to do with Voldemort or with just plain hatred and revenge towards Sirius, Lupin, Harry, which blinds hin to the fact that something is "ratty" out there. This way or the other, he has the fact put in front of him. Orna From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 14:52:38 2005 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:52:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142221 Thanks for the excellent questions! I think that most of these questions generated great responses therefore I will limit my answers to a few points I didn't see covered and a couple of questions of my own. > 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she? > suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over?her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger happy, or is it just Bella? I think this is a combination of Bella's cruelty and her paranoia at being in Azkaban. I think JKR has now established Bella as a shoot first ask questions later character. She tends to act in violence without considering the consequences. This probably means that as a DE one of the biggest attractions for her may have been inflicting pain on others. Also I would look for this kind of behavior to lead to her ultimate downfall, although she make take someone we care about with her. Either she will die in the same way she lived, or her carelessness will have LV get rid of her as damage control. Question: Could the fox be an animangus? If so whose? > 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and? > contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? > Krista, I loved your answer here about being "locked in." It brings to mind Virgina Woolf, although these texts bring her to mind often. > 5. Narcissa is described as having a note of hysteria in her voice? > and the look of a drowned person. She then enters a room that has the? feeling of a padded cell.? What does that tell us about Narcissa? How does that fit with her actions later in this chapter? I agree this is about Narcissa's desperation. Although it probably condemns her and her son a bit more as it demonstrates that she is capable of love and that Draco has received love from at least one source. Question: Why does Narcissa refer to Draco as "her only son?" Are there other children? Are they hidden? Why? Have they died? How? Perhaps an answer is not possible now, but it may be something to keep in mind. > 6. Snape, Narcissa and Bella drank a toast with blood-red wine. I'm? not sure which image came sooner to my mind at that point... > Do you think this was just setting the magical mood, or was JKR waving a flag? > Mood and symbolism. Calls to mind the idea of Christian notions of sacrifice (Christ's blood) and darker images also as others have mentioned. A layering of images here, if you will, to keep us guessing about Snape's real loyalties. > 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?? I actually had problems with this chapter and the previous one that I haven't quite reconciled. As a knee jerk reaction, I didn't like them because they were such a drastic departure from the normal narrative style. I felt that JKR used Chapter one because she liked it and wanted it to work somewhere in the series, but ultimately it didn't work for me. This chapter had much the same feeling for me, although there would be much less debate about Snape being ESE or not without it. I think I will have to read book 7 to determine if these chapters really work or not. > 10. 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? Well, you have me there. I hadn't considered this parallel before. This is a great observation. Beatrice From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Oct 28 15:32:02 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:32:02 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142222 > Christina > > Can they? Who have we actually seen execute a successful AK? > Expectopatronnie: > "...that's Marlene McKinnon, she was killed two weeks after this > was taken, *they* got her whole family... Benjy Fenwick, he copped > it too, we only ever found bits of him... That's Edgar Bones... > brother of Amelia Bones, *they* got him and his family' too ... > Gideon Prewett, it took *five Death Eaters* to kill him and his > brother Fabian... that's Dorcas Meadows, *Voldemort killed her > personally*... " (Moody showing Harry the picture of the old > Order, > OotP, Bloomsbury edition, p. 158, my emphasis). > Not to mention Amelia Bones, Emily Vance, Hannah Abott's mother > and DD (HBP, only Bones is mentioned as probably being killed by > VM personally). Christina: Oops, I forgot about HBP (shame on me), so I'll give you Vance and Bones (who I think were *specifically* described as having been killed by an AK...blank stare, no visible physical damage, etc); however, I don't think it's right to assume that all of these deaths were caused by AK's. We have seen murders committed in other ways- Bellatrix kills Sirius by sending him through the veil, Peter kills 12 (13?) muggles by blowing up a street. Benjy Fenwick must have been killed in another way- AK doesn't tear people's bodies apart. > Expectopatronnie: > For crying out loud - Sirius and > Lupin almost did in PoA (aiming at the rat, of course). Christina: I think Peter was actually in his human form when Lupin and Sirius aimed their wands at him, IIRC, but that's not too relevant. I really don't think they had the ability to kill Peter even if they wanted to, but that's pure speculation and another discussion altogether :) > Christina: > > >One would think that the AK spell would be > > *all* the DE's would be casting. The fact that they didn't > >suggests to me that casting AK is extremely difficult. > ... > > These are the baddest of the baddies > > here- why is anything but AK's being sent around? > > Expectopatronnie: > Because most of the battle, Harry's got the Prophecy, 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: > They know perfectly well what will be the destiny of the Prophecy, > should they AK any of Harry's friends! Christina: Well the Death Eaters don't know the contents of the prophecy (even if LV told them all what he knows about it, he still has never heard the second half). Harry's already pretty irritated at Voldemort- I doubt the Death Eaters decided to spare the lives of his friends to avoid angering him further (not to mention, they *did* kill one of his closest friends- Sirius!) > Expectopatronnie: > This is also an answer to the so-called mathematical problem: IMO > VM was weak after the rebound AK in 1981, and through some of the > books (up until the end of GoF), not because of the splitting of > his soul, but rather because of the lack of body for his mother- > soul (no matter how distorted it is). Christina: *After* 1981, and through to the present time, Voldemort was weak because of his lack of body and whatnot. But I was talking about the original comment by Dumbledore that LV became less and less human over the years, when he was talking about Voldemort's state *before* 1981 (IIRC...and I really hope I do or else I'm going to sound pretty stupid right now). So the fact that Voldemort has been in a weakened state since 1981 does *not* explain why he was getting progressively "less and less human" during his *original* reign. > bboyminn wrote: > You can kill a thousand times, and those thousand pieces of broken > soul are still part of you. Certianly, you have done yourself > spiritual harm, but not as badly as when you start removing pieces > of soul from yourself, which is exaclty what you do when you > create a Horcrux. Not only do you damage part of your soul in the > act of murder, but you lose part of your soul in the creation of > the Horcrux, and in losing, becoming separated from, part of your > soul, you lose a degree of your humanity. > expectopatronnie: > > I don't understand it that way: IMO when you kill you're ripping > your soul, and not merely damaging it. The ripped pieces evaporate > into thin air, unless you encase them with a horcrux. I really > don't think the actual making of the Horcrux increases the damage > to your soul Christina: I agree with Steve. 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)? I don't have the books on me, so I could completely be making this up, but didn't Voldemort create one of his horcruxes with a killing that occured a good amount of time earlier? That couldn't happen if your soul-part just sort of floats off (again, feel free to spear me if I'm wrong). > M. Thitathan: > Are we making too much of this? If we take DD's words that LV's > magical power does not diminish as his soul becomes more ripped as > canon. Christina: Where does Dumbledore say that? I'm not doubting that he said it, but I can't find it anywhere. > M. Thitathan: > Isn't it enough to assume that all the horcruxes contain soul > fragment with equal magical power and that Harry will have to get > rid of all of them before facing a LV that is just as magically > powerful as he was when all of his horcruxes were still intact? Christina: All I was trying to show was the meaning behind Dumbledore's "he became less and less human" remark. The original poster of this thread used it to support a certain idea, so I was trying to show that Dumbledore was, in fact, saying something else. The math was just for fun. Also, considering the fact that Book 7 is essentially going to be "Harry Potter and the Search for the Horcruxes," I don't think it's a futile exercise to consider the possible ways in which horcruxes work. As you can see from the conversation between Expectopatronnie and me, we don't have a very clear picture of how horcruxes fuction and it's possible to argue many different sides of the issue. And as for physicist!JKR, have you read the very lengthy "physics of time travel thread" from this summer? :) Christina From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 28 15:41:47 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:41:47 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142223 > > a_svirn: > > I don't know about other posters, but in the chapter 18 "Moony, > Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" Snape entered in the beginning of the > chapter when the door cricked: > > " Lupin broke off. There had been a loud creak behind him. The > bedroom door had opened of its own accord. All five of them stared > at it. Then Lupin strode toward it and looked out into the landing. > "No one there..." > "This place is haunted!" said Ron. > "It's not," said Lupin, still looking at the door in a puzzled > way. "The Shrieking Shack was never haunted.... The screams and > howls the villagers used to hear were made by me." > > That as you remember was the very beginning of his story. Which > means that Snape stood there and listened the whole tale about > animagi. Hickengruendler: True. But it wasn't mentioned in which animals they could turn. Just that they were animagi and that Sirius and James were big animals, while Peter was a little one. In fact, Harry didn't learn that James was a stag until the last chapter of the book. Sirius and Peter weren't explained either, because at this time the kids already knew that Sirius was a dog and that Sirius and Lupin suspected Peter to be Scabbers (a rat). Therefore there was no need to tell them that again. The important part of the explanation was how and why it happened. However, Sirius did mention the rat after Snape showed himself. He told Snape, that Ron should take his rat to the castle. Therefore I guess it was possible for Snape to connect the dots. But the thing is, it seems unlikely to me that he would try to, even if he is on Dumbledore's side. He was the one, who caught his old enemy. Why should he listen to Sirius' (from Snape's point of view) cheap excuses? And about the Dementors: While it is true, that he threatened to deliver Sirius and Lupin to them, and that the Trio believed this as well; in the end he didn't do it. He was the first to awake after everyone broke down and he brought Sirius to the castle, not to the Dementors. That doesn't make his behaviour much better, he was still positively squeeing after he thought that Sirius would get the kiss, but nonetheless he did choose the official route and did not act on his words. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 28 15:46:19 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:46:19 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142224 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ornadv" wrote: > I think, he has something to cover up - > Since Snape rushed out, because he had spotted Lupin and Sirius on > the Marauder's map, he should have also noticed Peter Pettigrew > there, like Lupin did. Hickengruendler: No. He couldn't see everybody, who was in the Shack on the map, because the shack wasn't on Hogwarts grounds. He only saw Lupin entering the secret passage under the Whoomping Willow and followed him, because he thought he met Snape. (At least supposing he was telling the truth. It might have nothing but a lie, but the story as he told it is believable and does not have the hole you mentioned). From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 28 16:56:10 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:56:10 -0000 Subject: Judging a book by it's cover (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142225 > Carol responds: > Aside from the escape from Harry's POV provided by the first two, > we are allowed insights into what's happening in the WW with > regard to Voldemort. Chapter 1 answers the question of what's > happened to Fudge and introduces us to Scrimgeour; "Spinner's End" > sets up the Draco plot, providing essential information to which > Harry is not privy, and preparing for the crucial role to be > played by the UV in the tower scene. It also enables us to > recognize at least some of Harry's interpretation of the later > encounter between Draco and Snape as misinterpretation. ("Helping" > Draco doesn't mean what Harry thinks it means.) > Thematically, the chapters move from the WW at > large to an important character whose relationship with Harry (as > hiself and as the HBP) shapes much of the book, to Harry himself > and the familiar Harrycentric point of view. Jen: For me, the first two chapters ended not with the UV, but the image of Harry sleeping peacefully against the window. Outside the window political maneuverings of the adults are taking place, while inside Harry is 'in the dark' again, literally and figuratively. Once more he will be called on to interpret a major event without all the information needed to do so, and the chance for misperception will be high. It's unfair, but Harry's development and the plot development call for this, he needs to experience the darkness of misperception before the light of truth**. To elaborate on Carol's thoughts above, we move from this symbolism into a story where Harry is able to connect with and understand the HBP in a way he's never done with Snape. Can't judge a book by it's cover, eh? Hehe, that sneaky JKR having Harry *change* the covers of the books, so that the HBP has a new cover much like adult Snape does. I think she was making the point that all Harry sees is the cover, the persona Snape puts forward, and not the real self Harry learned about in the potion book. The writing in the book represents the part of Snape Dumbledore alone is able to see and trust, probably due to what he told Voldemort: "It is one of the irritating things about old teachers. I'm afraid that they never quite forget their charges' youthful beginnings." (chap. 20, p. 442, Scholastic) Dumbledore was right to mistrust Riddle and will be right to trust Snape, I expect. Jen **(Pippin made me think of this image when she mentioned how Dumbledore finally enlightened Harry and 'told him everything' as the dawn was breaking in OOTP. JKR has proven herself to use symbolism very judiciously and purposefully). From annee19 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 16:10:10 2005 From: annee19 at yahoo.com (Anne) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:10:10 -0000 Subject: Annoying interruptions... + Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > PS! On a sidenote. It's been discussed if Fawkes and Snape have been > seen together - and if Fawkes in that case has been > acting 'distrusting' towards Snape. > Personally I can't recall any moment when Fawkes and Snape are both > seen together (might be wrong though?). > Could it be that Snape IS Fawkes? Animagus maybe? Is that the reason > Dumbledore never doubts Snape's loyalty? > Just one of those silly thoughts.... ya' know! Anne says: It's an interesting idea--quite appealing to the imagination--but I don't think Snape can be Fawkes. If we believe Dumbledore's statement that Fawkes gave only two tail feathers to Ollivander wands, and that those wands now belong to Voldemort and Harry, then it follows that Fawkes is much older than Snape. Voldemort started Hogwarts in 1938, according to the Lexicon, and Snape (also according to the Lexicon) wasn't born until 1960. That said, the proponents of the Snape/Fawkes theory probably have some great reasoning that will defy my logic. :) From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 17:12:24 2005 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:12:24 -0000 Subject: Wondering about Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142227 Bloomsbury p 596 (The White Tomb): Dumbledore is dead. The next day, Harry's in the Great Hall, thinking things. Among them: "Where, Harry wondered, was Malfoy now, and what was Voldemort making him do under the threat of killing him and his parents?" Hmmm - is it Harry or is it me being slow here? Wasn't Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore? And wouldn't Harry have figured that out by now? That thought of Harry's seemed a bit slow to me - but then again - I could very well be the slow part here.... but in that case, what WAS Voldemort making Draco do under the threat of killing him and his parents? Inge From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Oct 28 17:24:52 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:24:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Judging a book by it's cover (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006c01c5dbe4$826f5d10$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 142228 Jen: For me, the first two chapters ended not with the UV, but the image of Harry sleeping peacefully against the window. Outside the window political maneuverings of the adults are taking place, while inside Harry is 'in the dark' again, literally and figuratively. Once more he will be called on to interpret a major event without all the information needed to do so, and the chance for misperception will be high. It's unfair, but Harry's development and the plot development call for this, he needs to experience the darkness of misperception before the light of truth**. To elaborate on Carol's thoughts above, we move from this symbolism into a story where Harry is able to connect with and understand the HBP in a way he's never done with Snape. Can't judge a book by it's cover, eh? Hehe, that sneaky JKR having Harry *change* the covers of the books, so that the HBP has a new cover much like adult Snape does. I think she was making the point that all Harry sees is the cover, the persona Snape puts forward, and not the real self Harry learned about in the potion book. The writing in the book represents the part of Snape Dumbledore alone is able to see and trust, Sherry now: And just what part of Snape does the book show Harry? Not something positive. in spite of the brilliance of the potion instructions, the book teaches Harry several horrible dark curses. is this the glorious real Snape? All through the book, HBP that is, we're led to feel distrustful of the effect that book has on Harry. But then we find out it was Snape's book and that makes it ok? It seems to me that the identity of the owner of the book should confirm Harry's suspicions of Snape rather than allaying them. the Snape who is the Half Blood Prince is not a very nice fellow and not one Harry should trust, forgive or emulate. Did any who believe in DDM Snape trust the HBP all the way through the story and the identity just confirmed it for you? i am actually curious to know this, because I was uncomfortable with the book and the effect it had on Harry. The only reason I didn't worry about it more was that Hermione made me so mad that I sided more with Harry. Snape proclaiming himself to be the HBP was chilling because he is then claiming all that the book represents, including all those dark curses. no, Harry should think about leaving books like that alone in future. both the diary and the potions book caused him a lot of trouble. The potions book, in particular, brought out some not nice things in him. Sherry From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 28 17:30:40 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:30:40 -0000 Subject: Judging a book by it's cover (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: <006c01c5dbe4$826f5d10$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > And just what part of Snape does the book show Harry? Not something > positive. in spite of the brilliance of the potion instructions, the book > teaches Harry several horrible dark curses. several dark curses? I only counted the one - the semtaserpsa(or however it is spelled). The other spells were not considered dark magic(levicorpus, etc) - but just plain old hexes & curses, which Fred & George have done quite a bit in the past(not the same ones, of course, but they were jokers). For the most part, the book showed Snape in a positive light with his modifications to existing potions and making them more successful at creating them. colebiancardi From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 17:44:23 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:44:23 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142230 > Hickengruendler: > > True. But it wasn't mentioned in which animals they could turn. Just > that they were animagi and that Sirius and James were big animals, > while Peter was a little one. In fact, Harry didn't learn that James > was a stag until the last chapter of the book. Sirius and Peter > weren't explained either, because at this time the kids already knew > that Sirius was a dog and that Sirius and Lupin suspected Peter to be > Scabbers (a rat). Therefore there was no need to tell them that > again. The important part of the explanation was how and why it > happened. > > However, Sirius did mention the rat after Snape showed himself. He > told Snape, that Ron should take his rat to the castle. Therefore I > guess it was possible for Snape to connect the dots. a_svirn: Not only that. Lupin also mentioned the Marauders' nicknames and we know from the books 4-6, that Pettigrew is known among the DEs as Wormtail. Even if Snape had only seen him hooded and masked before, and had never guessed his true identity, after the Lupin's explanations all the pieces must have fallen into place. > Hickengruendler: But the thing > is, it seems unlikely to me that he would try to, even if he is on > Dumbledore's side. He was the one, who caught his old enemy. Why > should he listen to Sirius' (from Snape's point of view) cheap > excuses? > a_svirn: Well, he did listen to the Lupin's tale, didn't he? For a good hour I should think. Now, why? Evidently because he was interested in what Lupin had to say on the subject. Since he interrupted where he did, I think it's logical to conclude that he knew the rest. > Hickengruendler: > And about the Dementors: While it is true, that he threatened to > deliver Sirius and Lupin to them, and that the Trio believed this as > well; in the end he didn't do it. He was the first to awake after > everyone broke down and he brought Sirius to the castle, not to the > Dementors. That doesn't make his behaviour much better, he was still > positively squeeing after he thought that Sirius would get the kiss, > but nonetheless he did choose the official route and did not act on > his words. > a_svirn: How he was supposed to do deliver Sirius to the Dementors, if they had been driven away by Harry's Patronus? He couldn't very well leave the unconscious kids at the lake and go in search for a Dementor. Had there been a Dementer close in hand I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have made good on his threat. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 18:18:31 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:18:31 -0000 Subject: Snape in Shrieking Shack WAS: Re: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142231 > > Hickengruendler: . > > However, Sirius did mention the rat after Snape showed himself. He > told Snape, that Ron should take his rat to the castle. Therefore I > guess it was possible for Snape to connect the dots. But the thing > is, it seems unlikely to me that he would try to, even if he is on > Dumbledore's side. He was the one, who caught his old enemy. Why > should he listen to Sirius' (from Snape's point of view) cheap > excuses? Alla: But you see, to me , if Snape has ANY reason to suspect that Peter IS alive and IS Wormtail and WAS the one who betrayed Potters, then Snape behaviour (to me only of course) loses any kind of justification and becomes not just revenge-ridden, which Snape may feel that he is entitled to, but absolutely despicable. If Snape honestly thinks that Sirius is a murderer and that Peter is dead, I would still dislike that Snape refuses to listen to any reason and went crazy, but I may understand it. If he figures out that Peter is alive, then really, no matter what grudges , deserved or not, Snape holds against Sirius, I feel rather strong agreement with Lupin's ( schoolboy grudge is not worth putting innocent man back in prison). To sum up - Snape may not feel that he SHOULD listen to Sirius "cheap excuses", but if Snape "connects the dots", and realises that those excuses may be true, and he considers himself a decent person, he really really should, IMO. And of course, IF Snape connected the dots ( he is a smart guy, our Severus :-)), he should not have try to silence Harry and Hermione later in hospital wing, IMO. > > a_svirn: > > I am sincerely puzzled how you can call a DE "rule-follower"? Colebiancardi: > An ex-DE, please - thank you very much. Alla: Just a quick comment, we do NOT know for sure that Snape is an ex-DE, so I personally would at most call him " maybe ex-DE", because I think that at the end of HBP it is a reasonable interpretation that Snape either was always faithful to his former master or made a choice to be faithful to him now. JMO, Alla From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 28 18:28:15 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:28:15 -0000 Subject: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142232 > > a_svirn: > > Not only that. Lupin also mentioned the Marauders' nicknames and we > know from the books 4-6, that Pettigrew is known among the DEs as > Wormtail. Even if Snape had only seen him hooded and masked before, > and had never guessed his true identity, after the Lupin's > explanations all the pieces must have fallen into place. Hickengruendler: Yes, later he is known as Wormtail among the Death Eaters. But was he already in the first war? My main objection is, that I don't think Voldemort would tell too many people the name of his spy. Why should he do this and therefore risking that the spy would blow his cover? And Karkaroff told Crouch in GoF in the Pensieve scene, that many Death Eaters did not know every other DE's. I am aware that Sirius said that Wormtail hid himself, because many Death Eaters thought he betrayed Voldemort. But I don't think this automatically means, that all the DE's (including Snape) knew about Wormtail. > a_svirn: > How he was supposed to do deliver Sirius to the Dementors, if they > had been driven away by Harry's Patronus? > He couldn't very well > leave the unconscious kids at the lake and go in search for a > Dementor. Had there been a Dementer close in hand I have no doubt > whatsoever that he would have made good on his threat. > Hickengruendler: The Dementors still had to be somewhere close. Harry didn't drive them away from the grounds. And they were meant to protect the Hogwarts grounds after all. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 28 18:52:08 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:52:08 -0000 Subject: Wondering about Malfoy and Judging a book by its cover In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142233 Inge: > Bloomsbury p 596 (The White Tomb): > > Dumbledore is dead. The next day, Harry's in the Great Hall, thinking > things. Among them: > "Where, Harry wondered, was Malfoy now, and what was Voldemort making > him do under the threat of killing him and his parents?" > > Hmmm - is it Harry or is it me being slow here? > Wasn't Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore? And wouldn't Harry have > figured that out by now? > That thought of Harry's seemed a bit slow to me - but then again - I > could very well be the slow part here.... but in that case, what WAS > Voldemort making Draco do under the threat of killing him and his > parents? Magpie: I believe Harry is wondering what new things Voldemort has come up with to force him to do now that Dumbledore is dead. Dumbledore's death hasn't really changed anything about Draco's situation. Sherry now: And just what part of Snape does the book show Harry? Not something positive. in spite of the brilliance of the potion instructions, the book teaches Harry several horrible dark curses. is this the glorious real Snape? All through the book, HBP that is, we're led to feel distrustful of the effect that book has on Harry. But then we find out it was Snape's book and that makes it ok? Magpie: Actually, I'd say the interesting thing about the effect that the book isn't really affecting him in terms of the HBP really doing anything--it's not the CoS diary, iow. I think it's saying more about Harry than it does about Snape, whom we already knew was an angry teenager, full of rage against James Potter and his friends, who was already on his way to being a Death Eater. Harry's starting to hex people in the hallways doesn't mean he's coming under the HBP's influence (actually, James was said to hex people in the hallways). I think the "bad feeling" about the book has to do with Harry's reliance on it, his willingness to cheat off it (and yes, I realize that the way it's written one can say it's really not cheating-Harry is simply using a different set of instructions, but the idea is, imo, supposed to be that Harry begins to get used to taking credit for talent he doesn't have, and that's a problem unique to Harry with nothing to do with Snape). The book is, in many ways, simply POWER, and that's what Harry starts to abuse with it, hexing people in the hallways, longing to see just what Sectumsempra will do to his enemies. When Snape was writing the book he was, imo, coming from a completely different place. Not a good place, of course. But Harry is not, imo, becoming Snape at all when he uses the book. The book, imo, is a great example of something that is not right or wrong, but simply power. That's what Harry likes about it. He might feel betrayed by the Prince, but this is silly--the Prince was never really his friend. He didn't intentionally suck Harry in, and was not really speaking to Harry at all in the book, much less assuring him that nothing in the book could hurt anyone. He didn't encourage Harry to do anything. Even when Harry sees what the stuff in the book can do after Sectumsempra one of his first thoughts is to hold on to the book and defend the Prince and himself equally. In a way Harry creates the persona of the HBP all on his own. He speaks of the Prince as if he's a nice guy, but mostly because he enjoys his "help." I think Harry partially feels defensive of the Prince because he has always understood him very well. -m From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 28 17:01:30 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:01:30 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142234 > > Benjy Fenwick, he copped > > it too, we only ever found bits of him... > Christina wrote: > however, I don't think it's right to assume that all of these > deaths were caused by AK's. > We have seen murders committed in other ways-Bellatrix > kills Sirius by sending him through the veil, Peter kills > 12 (13?) muggles by blowing up a street. Benjy Fenwick must have > been killed in another way- AK doesn't tear people's bodies apart. 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... What I do want to make clear, is that IMO wizards can only get killed with strong magical spells, such as AK. ("'CAR CRASH' roared Hagrid.... 'How couls a car crash kill Lily an' James Potter? It's an outrage! A scandal!" PS, p.44, Bloomsbury edition). So the muggles PP killed are not relevant. 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: > > For crying out loud - Sirius and > > Lupin almost did in PoA (aiming at the rat, of course). > > Christina: > > I think Peter was actually in his human form when Lupin and Sirius > aimed their wands at him, IIRC, but that's not too relevant. Expectopatronnie: I had the other meaning of 'rat' in mind. You're right - of course he was aimed at in his human form. > 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: 'I won't smash the prophecy if you won't hurt my friends more than necessary in this chase'. "Harry felt the others close in around Ginny; he stepped sideways so that he was right in front of her, the prophecy held up to his chest. 'You'll have to smash this if you want to attack any of us' he told Bellatrix." (OotP, p.691, Bloomsbury). 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: > > 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: That's a really good point you're making, and I really have to reconsider my position on the subject. I believe that every AK ripps the soul, and therefore every DE (or other) that commits this act will be to some extent 'less human'. This is precisely why Harry stops Lupin and Sirius from killing PP - not out of pity for Peter, but out of concern for his father's more loyal friends. 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: > > Also, considering the fact that Book 7 is > essentially going to be "Harry Potter and the Search for the > Horcruxes," I don't think it's a futile exercise to consider > the possible ways in which horcruxes work. > As you can see from the conversation between > Expectopatronnie and me, we don't have a very clear picture of how > horcruxes fuction and it's possible to argue many different sides > of the issue. 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? Can anything be a horcrux? Can you produce a horcrux from any AK, or does it have to be a particularly cold-blood/meaningfull murder? E. (wondering how did VM get his red slit eyes....) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 19:23:38 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:23:38 -0000 Subject: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142235 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ronnie" wrote: > > > bboyminn wrote: > > > You can kill a thousand times, and those thousand pieces of broken > > soul are still part of you. ... Not only do you damage part of > > your soul in the act of murder, but you lose part of your soul in > > the creation of the Horcrux, and in losing, becoming separated > > from, part of your soul, you lose a degree of your humanity. > > > expectopatronnie: > > I don't understand it that way: IMO when you kill you're ripping > your soul, and not merely damaging it. The ripped pieces evaporate > into thin air, unless you encase them with a horcrux. I really > don't think the actual making of the Horcrux increases the damage > to your soul > > E. bboyminn: Well, I can't actually say you are wrong, but I think there is circumstantial evidents that contradicts your position. For example, consider Slughorn's memory in which he tells Riddle about the Horcruxes. In that memory, it seems to be after Tom killed Gaunt and the Riddle family. Note he has the Gaunt/Slytherin ring on his finger, but he doesn't really know about Horcruxes yet. If he has killed his parents and torn his soul, how much time does he have before the torn pieces of soul 'evaporate into thin air'? To imply that the soul-pieces 'evaporate into thin air' implies that they are gone relatively quickly. It's difficult to say how much time it took Tom to create each individual Horcruxes (re: time between murder and creation), but it seems clear that it took him a significant amount time to create the original Diary Horcrux. Also, we must to some extent blend real-life with fictional life. If a person commits murder and that tears his soul, and that soul piece is lost, then from a religious sense, can that murderer never be redeemed? From a Christian perspective, even the worst of us is capable of achieving salvation, but how is salvation possible if you have lost part of your soul? Again, I know that's not proof, but it is a least an indicator. So far in JKR's Wizard World, we have only one thing that /seems/ to destroy the soul, and that is the Dementors. Of course, I can't really say that with absolute certainty. In general though, the soul is eternal. While I know I can't offer definitive proof and am equally sure that without proof I will never sway your opinion, I am convinced that Killing tears the soul, but that torn damaged soul stays with the murderer. I do, personally, believe that given substantial amounts of time the soul is capable of repairing itself. While given decades of time and a substantial change of heart, the soul may, to some extent, heal itself, it will always be scarred and damaged by the action of murder. I know I haven't offerred anything remotely close to proof here, in fact, hardly more than a bit of philosophy, but the timing of a soul-piece that evaporates into thin air just seems to critial and short. I'd much rather believe it hangs around either to attempt to heal, or to be given up as a Horcrux. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 19:07:28 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Has Professor Trelawney been kidnapped? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051028190728.59642.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142236 Missvassey wrote: "This is something I never understood. I didn't understand why Trelawney would be in danger outside the walls of Hogwarts after Voldemort had already tried to kill Harry and realized that he hadn't herd the whole thing." CH3ed: Well, I don't think Trelawney has made her last true prophecy yet, so it would be better that when she makes her next true prophecy it is not heard by LV and his crew. Missvassey wrote: "What good would knowing the whole thing be? We know the whole prophesy and I can't honestly see what information derived from it could be useful." CH3ed: I think the vital info is that LV can't send somebody else to kill Harry. That he must kill Harry himself (or be killed by Harry) in order to be successful. The thought of that gives me pause when I think of how Snape yelled at the DE's to leave Harry alone because "he belongs to the Dark Lord," while running off after killing DD. LV may have guessed the rest of what he hadn't heard in that prophecy... (I'm taking DD's words to Harry in the Weasley's broom shed to mean that DD hadn't told anyone else beside Harry of the whole prophesy). CH3ed From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 28 19:44:25 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:44:25 -0000 Subject: Snape in Shrieking Shack WAS: Re: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Colebiancardi: > > An ex-DE, please - thank you very much. > > Alla: > > Just a quick comment, we do NOT know for sure that Snape is an ex- DE, > so I personally would at most call him " maybe ex-DE", because I > think that at the end of HBP it is a reasonable interpretation that > Snape either was always faithful to his former master or made a > choice to be faithful to him now. > as far as I am concerned, Dumbledore's words in GoF "Severus is no more a Death Eater than I am" is canon. You may NOT know, but I am pretty darn sure :) You stated a reasonable interpretation, which is just that, an interpretation. JMHO colebiancardi From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Oct 28 19:55:56 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:55:56 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack, was Re: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142239 I figured it was past time to change the thread title, since we're wayyyy off the topic of the original post. > a_svirn: > > Not only that. Lupin also mentioned the Marauders' nicknames and we > know from the books 4-6, that Pettigrew is known among the DEs as > Wormtail. Even if Snape had only seen him hooded and masked before, > and had never guessed his true identity, after the Lupin's > explanations all the pieces must have fallen into place. Christina: I think that Snape knew the Marauders' nicknames back from his school days (judging from his reaction to seeing the names on the map and the loose way in which they used them), but even if that is true, it doesn't matter. Yes, we know that the Death Eaters all know who Wormtail is....*from the books 4-6*. PoA is before all of this. We do have canon for the fact that Voldemort does not tell all his Death Eaters everything. There is no reason to believe that Snape knew who Wormtail was. Not to mention the fact that throughout Lupin's speech, there is *nothing* that suggests that Peter was the spy instead of Sirius. Snape suspects Sirius. He's going to listen for things that support his view. He fixates on the information Lupin gives about Sirius (which *does* make him look culpable). He doesn't hear anything about "the rat" being guilty until he's already pulled off his cloak and is threatening to take Sirius away. Sirius's pleas for Snape to "look at the rat" sound like a man desperate to evade the dementor's kiss. > a_svirn: > > Well, he did listen to the Lupin's tale, didn't he? For a good hour > I should think. Christina: A good *hour*? Snape enters on page 352 (US Hardcover) and reveals himself on page 357. That's five pages. Act it out; Snape was listening to Lupin for less than 10 minutes. During that time, there was no special mention of Pettigrew's guilt, nor of the fact that he wasn't dead. Yes, Lupin says that Pettigrew was an Animagus, but he says the same thing about Sirius, which, since it confirmed Snape's beliefs, was undoubtedly what he was paying attention to. > a_svirn: > Now, why? Evidently because he was interested in > what Lupin had to say on the subject. Christina: Right. And what he heard was Lupin talking about how guilty he felt about never telling Dumbledore about *Sirius's* Animagus form. > a_svirn: > Since he interrupted where he > did, I think it's logical to conclude that he knew the rest. Christina: I think he was planning on interrupting when Lupin made what Snape saw as a "confession" on page 356, but then his name came up and he listened to see what Lupin and Sirius would say about him. As for the exact moment he chose to reveal himself, well, Snape *is* a Slytherin after all, and they do love their dramatic entrances. > a_svirn: > How he was supposed to do deliver Sirius to the Dementors, if they > had been driven away by Harry's Patronus? He couldn't very well > leave the unconscious kids at the lake and go in search for a > Dementor. Had there been a Dementer close in hand I have no doubt > whatsoever that he would have made good on his threat. Christina: As Colebiancardi said, Snape is not dead-set on bringing Sirius directly to the Dementors. He expresses a good deal of fairness in the "Two more for Azkaban" and "Give me a reason" comments. As a matter of fact, I'd say that Snape's actions are more merciful than Lupins and Sirius's. Snape might *threaten* to give Sirius to the dementors directly, but he clearly mentions handing him (and Lupin) over to the authorities first. What to Lupin and Sirius do when they are in the exact same situation? (PoA, pages 373 and 375) ...the ghost of a grin flitted across [Black's] gaunt face. He, too, began rolling up his sleeves. "Shall we kill him together?" "Yes, I think so," Lupin said grimly "You should have realized," said Lupin quietly, "if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would. Good-bye, Peter." (end quote) Sirius and Lupin don't even do the favor of giving Peter over to the dementors- they plan on killing him outright! It is *Harry* that suggests the alternative of taking Peter back to the authorities. And I do think that the two situations are exactly alike- whether he's right or not, Snape has *every reason* to believe that Sirius is guilty. Just because Snape hates Sirius doesn't mean that his belief in Sirius's guilt is unreasonable. Even Dumbledore gave Fudge testimony that Sirius was the Potters' Secret-Keeper. Christina From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 20:27:15 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:27:15 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142240 A-svirn wrote: > > He [Snape] couldn't very well leave the unconscious kids at the lake and go in search for a Dementor. Had there been a Dementer close in hand I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have made good on his threat. > > > > Hickengruendler responded: > > The Dementors still had to be somewhere close. Harry didn't drive > them away from the grounds. And they were meant to protect the > Hogwarts grounds after all. Carol adds: Not to mention that Snape knew very well that Lupin was at large in werewolf form. By conjuring stretchers and taking the unconscious kids (and Sirius Black, whom I think he still believed to be a murderer) to the castle, he removed them from very real danger and quite possibly saved their lives. He could have left Sirius for the werewolf, but instead he took him to the castle to be placed in Fudge's custody. As for his interpreting what he overheard to mean what we know it means, think about Harry's interpretations every time he eavesdrops. JKR has indicated again and again that eavesdroppers who overhear part of a conversation interpret it to match their preconceptions. Also, to address a point that's been snipped from a-svirn's post, the DEs in general don't necessarily know Wormtail's identity and may not even know the nickname. The DEs Sirius overhears in Azkaban talking about Wormtail are probably Bellatrix Lestrange and the Lestrange brothers, who enter Azkaban some months after the confrontation between Wormtail and Sirius that lands Sirius (or should I call him Padfoot?) in Azkaban. Quite possibly Bellatrix, as LV's most loyal follower, knew Peter's identity. She and her cronies certainly know that Sirius is in prison for ostensibly murdering Peter Pettigrew, so they no doubt put two and two together and conclude that the informer Wormtail is dead. But there's no indication that the DEs outside Azkaban, or the ex-DE Snape, had access to this same information. (As others have noted, the DEs don't necessarily know each other and that it's infinitely logical for LV to keep Wormtail's identity secret.) Snape's actions throughout PoA indicate that, like everyone else, he thought that Sirius Black was the murdering traitor and that Pettigrew was dead. Snape's actions in the Shrieking Shack reflect his knowledge that Lupin is about to transform into a werewolf (which is why he conjures ropes to tie him up) and his belief (clung to stubbornly, but he's believed it for twelve years) that Sirius Black is a dangerous murderer whom Lupin has been helping into the castle. When Snape tells Harry, "I just saved your life. You should be grateful" (quoted from memory), IMO, he believes exactly that. And he again saves their lives, or at least rescues them from very real danger, by conjuring the stretchers and floating them to the castle. If he were ESE! and wanted Harry to die, all he needed to do was leave him and his friends at the mercy of Werewolf!Lupin. Nice revenge on Lupin, too. Carol From unix4evr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 20:35:30 2005 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:35:30 -0000 Subject: Time Turners Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142241 Excuse me if someone already raised this, but -- I know you can't bring someone back from the dead. We've been told this about Harry's parents. BUT apparently you can go back in time and change events so they never happened. I'm thinking of Buckbeak's execution. Harry, Ron and Hermione used her time turner to go back in time and save Buckbeak who HAD been killed. Get where I'm going with this??? Is is feasible that JKR could have Harry go back in time to warn Dumbledore and thus save his life? Also -- I've gone back and forth on the Snape "good" Snape "bad" bit and have concluded he is a rotter. My reason? I'm re-reading The Goblet of Fire. Early in the book we are told that Voldemort's most faithful servant will return to him and this may allow him to succeed. Harry assumed the servant was Wormtail. Wormtail isn't that strong. The faithful servant was Snape. From muellem at bc.edu Fri Oct 28 20:41:11 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:41:11 -0000 Subject: Time Turners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" wrote: > > Also -- I've gone back and forth on the Snape "good" Snape "bad" bit > and have concluded he is a rotter. My reason? I'm re-reading The > Goblet of Fire. Early in the book we are told that Voldemort's most > faithful servant will return to him and this may allow him to > succeed. > > Harry assumed the servant was Wormtail. Wormtail isn't that strong. > > The faithful servant was Snape. > oh...list elves forgive me - this will be my last post of the day - hey, I haven't been posting that much in a while - smacks forehead with shoe. Nope, that most faithful servant was Barty Crouch, Jr. Not Wormtail. If you read the bit where Voldy comes back to life, he mentions his most loyal servant at Hogwarts - he was talking about Barty - Snape is the one who he thinks has left him forever, and will be killed. colebiancardi From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 20:06:01 2005 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:06:01 -0000 Subject: Judging a book by it's cover (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142243 Sherry Gomes wrote: > > And just what part of Snape does the book show Harry? Not something > > positive. in spite of the brilliance of the potion instructions, > the book > > teaches Harry several horrible dark curses. The book is both positive and negative. It shows a person who was creative (inventing new hexes), had a sense of humor ("Just shove a bezoar down their throats" struck me as a pretty concise and funny comment), and was interested in excellence (improving the instructions in potion-making.) It was also a person who had enemies (Sectumsempra) and feared detection (the non- verbal nature of Levicorpus, and Muffliato). It was possibly a person who was low on funds (taking notes in his book instead of on a parchment) and who cared more about the content of books than their appearance. And, to judge by the title "half-blood Prince" had no illusions, and a sense of humor about his origins. He presented Harry with both danger and opportunities. He was both helpful and harmful. If our own souls were captured in the margin notes of a textbook, how good or evil might we appear to the impressionable? ~Montavilla From shedraconis at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 18:23:28 2005 From: shedraconis at yahoo.com (Shannon) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Wondering about Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051028182328.31522.qmail@web60423.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142244 Inge wrote: Bloomsbury p 596 (The White Tomb): Hmmm - is it Harry or is it me being slow here? Wasn't Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore? And wouldn't Harry have figured that out by now? That thought of Harry's seemed a bit slow to me - but then again - I could very well be the slow part here.... but in that case, what WAS Voldemort making Draco do under the threat of killing him and his parents? Shannon: Hi everyone! I am new around here, the name is Shannon. I am hoping it is ok, to jump right in on a question. I think that Harry, got that Draco was meant to kill Dumbledore. I think he might have been feeling a bit sorry for Draco. Draco is in deep trouble, by not killing Dumbledore. That was his assignment, actually I believe it was to punish Lucius. Either way, he was told to do something by Voldermort and failed at doing so. This places himself, his Mother and Father into deeper jeopardy. Voldermort is not happy with the Malfoy clan at all. Have a great day! Shannon From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 21:07:59 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:07:59 -0000 Subject: Time Turners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142245 unix4evr wrote: > > Excuse me if someone already raised this, but -- > BUT apparently you can go back in time and change events so they > never happened. I'm thinking of Buckbeak's execution. Harry, Ron > and Hermione used her time turner to go back in time and save > Buckbeak who HAD been killed. > > Get where I'm going with this??? zgirnius: I see where you are going, yes. But we don't know that Buckbeak was ever killed. I would say that he was not, he escaped the executioner. All we read about it is that (out of sight) the sound of the axe is heard. This still happens, in fact, the executioner (again offstage, we just hear it) swings his axe at the fence in frustration. Dumbledore knew this. It why, when he told Harry and Hermione to use the Time-Turner, "If all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight". He knew Buckbeak had somehow gotten away, and was hoping this meant that the Time-Turning duo had freed him in order to help Sirius. Which turned out to be the case. Dumbledore, on the other hand, has died right in front of us. (Unless it was all a fake, in which case no need to Time-Turn to warn anybody, anyway...) unix4evr: > Also -- I've gone back and forth on the Snape "good" Snape "bad" bit > and have concluded he is a rotter. My reason? I'm re-reading The > Goblet of Fire. Early in the book we are told that Voldemort's most > faithful servant will return to him and this may allow him to > succeed. > > Harry assumed the servant was Wormtail. Wormtail isn't that strong. zgirnius: Harry assumed this because Wormtail was the only servant of Voldemort he knew about at the time who was not in Azkaban. So it was the only guess he could make at the time. unix4evr: > The faithful servant was Snape. zgirnius: By the end of the book our menu of choices has grown to include not only Snape, but also Karkaroff and Crouch, Jr. In the graveyard scene Voldemort refers to six missing Death Eaters. (p. 651 US paperback). "three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service." How to match the three new DEs we know about to the three who are missing? The coward I think is Karkaroff. This makes sense in light of he fact that Karakroff (we learn in a Pensieve scene from GoF) gave evidence against other DEs in exchange for a lesser sentence. Crouch makes no sense as the one who has left forever, since he has clearly been working for Voldemort all year. Which leaves that role for Snape. Lucky for Snape, when he shows up later that evening he is apparently able to convince Voldemort not to kill him after all. (I conclude this as he is still alive after that meeting). Of course, you are free to decide Snape is a rotter anyway, for any number of other reasons... ;o) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 21:43:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 21:43:27 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142246 > >>Carol: > > I can see an adult who can Apparate and Disapparate hiding in > > plain sight. But how is the child Severus supposed to do that? > > Did he spend his entire out-of-school life in that dreary > > bedroom? I can't imagine him wearing Muggle clothes or going to > > school with Muggle children. > >>Potioncat: > For that matter, how did Sirius and Regulus fit into the > neighborhood at 12GP? We could make an argument that the Weasleys > managed to keep all their kids close, but they aren't in a city. Betsy Hp: I think this is an area where what we see in the books doesn't accurately reflect the actual makeup of the Wizarding World. For Harry there is a total seperation of the two worlds. The Dursleys have nothing (nothing!) to do with Wizards; Hogwarts has nothing to do with Muggles. But I don't that's the usual case for the average wizard. Harry is technically in hiding, so other than Order members, he doesn't have magical folks dropping by for a visit. (Dobby was a notable exception that helped prove the rule.) Hogwarts is in a remote location with only the wizarding town of Hogsmeade (only one in the UK, IIRC) nearby. Then, of course, there are the Weasleys. I'm not sure if they're really that isolated or if playing host to Harry has lead to their isolation, but Molly has had to venture into town on a few occasions (calling a cab, getting Ron to a phone, buying stamps for the letter they mailed to Harry) so obviously the townsfolk know the Weasleys exist. (One or more of them may well be dating a Weasley twin in HBP.) When it's not to do with Harry, JKR seems to suggest that wizards walk amongst muggles all the time. After all, they have to live *somewhere* and they can't all fit in Hogsmeade. When two witches are killed, their deaths are noted by the Muggle press (HBP). So Muggles were aware of their existence (or at least, not so unaware that there was a question of where they came from). And I think that in general, most wizards know a little something of the muggle world. I doubt they travel in it a lot, what with floo powder and portkeys and such, but they must venture out. People knew Amelia Bones existed. Even Draco, that purest of pure-bloods, knows what a helicopter is. I have a feeling that any wizard or wizarding family is looked on as a strange person or family that keep themselves to themselves in the neigborhoods they reside in. There might a bit of protective magic thrown in (notice-me-not or something like that) to keep door-to- door salesmen away, but I doubt they all live so totally isolated that Muggles are completely unaware of them. Betsy Hp From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 28 22:17:39 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:17:39 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142247 > > Carol adds: > Not to mention that Snape knew very well that Lupin was at large in > werewolf form. Hickengruendler: This reminds me of the scene in the movie, where Snape shaltered the Trio from the werewolf. I know it is off topic to discuss the movie on this list, and that it's difficult to draw some conclusions based on how the characters act in the movie anyway. But I think this is relevant for the discussion, because David Heyman (the producer) said during the GoF press conference last week this: "DH: Jo is the most generous of collaborators - she sees each and every draft of the screenplay. We want to do that because, 1) I made a promise at the beginning that I, that we, would be true, but 2) because we would be fools to do otherwise. So, we show her each draft, and we also don't want to do anything will disrupt books - at that time Book 6 hadn't been published, or Book 7 - we didn't want to do anything that would adversely affect that order; that would make people read them askant, or looking askant." (From here: http://www.the-leaky- cauldron.org/pottercast/transcripts/gofpressjunket1.htm) That means Jo likely also knew about the scene, where Snape protects the Trio and she didn't object to it, while she did object to arguably minor things, like little people dabcing on the tables or the Hogwarts graveyard. That does not sound as if the Snape in her mind had completely evil motivations that night. (I mean, more evil than being exited that someone's soul gets sucked out, which really is pretty bad enough). And it also does not seem, as if the Snape in her mind is irredemably bad. Hickengruendler From easimm at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 22:53:08 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:53:08 -0000 Subject: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142248 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? Neither one looks like he's going to drop any limbs or curl up and die if he doesn't kill off the other. (Sorry if this topic has been covered before, but I haven't noticed it.) Quoting someone who quoted someone else they can't remember, "the line ""neither can live while the other survives"" might mean that right now, neither Harry nor LV are living to a full extent." How can we tell that they aren't living to as full an extent as any other character in the book? 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 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 22:57:29 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:57:29 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Carol: > > > I can see an adult who can Apparate and Disapparate hiding in > > > plain sight. But how is the child Severus supposed to do that? > > > Did he spend his entire out-of-school life in that dreary > > > bedroom? I can't imagine him wearing Muggle clothes or going to > > > school with Muggle children. > > > >>Potioncat: > > For that matter, how did Sirius and Regulus fit into the > > neighborhood at 12GP? We could make an argument that the Weasleys > > managed to keep all their kids close, but they aren't in a city. > Betsy Hp: > ... > > ... > > Then, of course, ... Molly has had to venture into town on a few > occasions (calling a cab, getting Ron to a phone, buying stamps > for the letter they mailed to Harry) so obviously the townsfolk > know the Weasleys exist. ... > > ... > > And I think that in general, most wizards know a little something > of the muggle world. I doubt they travel in it a lot, what with > floo powder and portkeys and such, but they must venture out. ... > Even Draco, that purest of pure-bloods, knows what a helicopter is. > > I have a feeling that any wizard or wizarding family is looked on as > a strange person or family that keep themselves to themselves in the > neigborhoods they reside in. There might a bit of protective magic > thrown in (notice-me-not or something like that) to keep door-to- > door salesmen away, but I doubt they all live so totally isolated > that Muggles are completely unaware of them. > > Betsy Hp bboyminn: Well, I'm repeating myself again; sorry. To some extent this is old news as I've said it so many times before, but I think it still holds up as an excellent analogy to wizards in the muggle world. I've always analogized the Wizard World to Chinatown. Many Chinese move to London, or San Franscico, or New York, and find themselve in a foreign and unfamiliar culture, so they seek out others of a culture similar to their own, and gravitate to places like Chinatown, or in the case of others, Koreatown, Little Italy, Little Tokyo, Little Saigon, etc.... In many case, despite being in a foreign country they exists totally in this small enclave of their own culture; they eat Chinese, they speak Chinese, they associate with Chinese, and in every way they live Chinese despite being in the middle of New York City or London. For the record, Korea Town in Los Angeles has a population of 250,000; that's equal to the total population of the City of Minneapolis. Now, it's not impossible for them to venture out of Chinatown, but they do so with great hesitation. Picture yourself alone on the streets of Beijing/Peking trying to make your way alone, or trying to buy your nephew a birthday present; a very uncomfortable task in a very uncomfortable environment. That's how I picture wizards who venture into the muggle world; it's like going down to Chinatown where most people speak some English, but it's still a very foreign and frequently uncomfortable environment. Best to say comfortably with your own kind. In the rare but notable cases where a wizard lives in a muggle neighborhood, I believe it is either very urban and impersonal, so you don't have to know your neighbors, or it's remote like the Weasleys. Friendly comfortable safe suburbs don't seem likely for most wizard. We know that Mad-Eye lives in muggle London, but I suspect he lives in an highly urban area where you could live next door to someone for years and never even say 'Hi' to them. Keeping in mind as others have pointed out, that Moody can come and go as he pleases without ever leaving the house by using Floo and Apparation. He could leave the house everyday, and from the perspective of his neighbors, he wouldn't leave the house for a month. While it's not perfect, I think Chinatown/Koreatown, or similar, very clearly demonstrates how one completely foreign culture can exist isolated within another. Just passing it along...again...and again...and a... well you get the idea. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 23:01:07 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:01:07 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142250 >Hickengruendler: >Yes, later he is known as Wormtail among the Death Eaters. But was >he >already in the first war? My main objection is, that I don't think >Voldemort would tell too many people the name of his spy. Why >should >he do this and therefore risking that the spy would blow his cover? a_svirn: Which is why, I believe, he's known as Wormtail rather than Pettigrew. Why else? It's not a customary practice among DE to use assumed names. Indeed, apart from Wormtail and Voldemort himself they only ever use their proper names. >Hickengruendler: >And Karkaroff told Crouch in GoF in the Pensieve scene, that many >Death Eaters did not know every other DE's. I am aware that Sirius >said that Wormtail hid himself, because many Death Eaters thought >he >betrayed Voldemort. But I don't think this automatically means, >that >all the DE's (including Snape) knew about Wormtail. a_svirn: Well, what does it mean then? >Hickengruendler: >The Dementors still had to be somewhere close. Harry didn't drive >them away from the grounds. And they were meant to protect the >Hogwarts grounds after all. a_svirn: Harry drove the far enough nevertheless: "What amazes me most is the behavior of the dementors... you've really no idea what made them retreat, Snape?" "No, Minister... by the time I had come 'round they were heading back to their positions at the entrances...." Also as Carol very rightly pointed out there was a werewolf out there at large. So no, a search for a Dementor wasn't an option at the time much to Snape's regret. >Carol adds: >Not to mention that Snape knew very well that Lupin was at large in >werewolf form. By conjuring stretchers and taking the unconscious >kids >(and Sirius Black, whom I think he still believed to be a murderer) >to >the castle, he removed them from very real danger and quite >possibly >saved their lives. He could have left Sirius for the werewolf, but >instead he took him to the castle to be placed in Fudge's custody. a_svirn: He could of course but wouldn't it be a rather stupid thing to? What if Sirius came to his senses before werewolf got him? No, I don't see that Snape really had any other option than took them all up to the castle. Carol: >The DEs Sirius overhears in Azkaban talking >about Wormtail are probably Bellatrix Lestrange and the Lestrange >brothers, who enter Azkaban some months after the confrontation >between Wormtail and Sirius that lands Sirius (or should I call him >Padfoot?) in Azkaban. Quite possibly Bellatrix, as LV's most loyal >follower, knew Peter's identity. She and her cronies certainly know >that Sirius is in prison for ostensibly murdering Peter Pettigrew, >so >they no doubt put two and two together and conclude that the >informer >Wormtail is dead. But there's no indication that the DEs outside >Azkaban, or the ex-DE Snape, had access to this same information. > (As >others have noted, the DEs don't necessarily know each other and >that >it's infinitely logical for LV to keep Wormtail's identity secret.) a_svirn: There is even less indication that only Bellatrix knew about Wormtail, and that she had been more trusted follower than Snape. For one thing Sirius actually said: "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" (emphasis mine). For another if they had known him only as "Wormtail" during the first Voldemort's reign it means that they WEREN'T privy to his identity. Carol: >Snape's actions in the Shrieking Shack reflect his knowledge that >Lupin is about to transform into a werewolf (which is why he >conjures >ropes to tie him up) a_svirn: As a Dark Arts expert he would have known that ropes would not hold when Lupin transformed. Why even chains didn't, did they? And what about gagging him was it also for a safety reason? >Carol: >and his belief (clung to stubbornly, but he's >believed it for twelve years) that Sirius Black is a dangerous >murderer whom Lupin has been helping into the castle. When Snape >tells >Harry, "I just saved your life. You should be grateful" (quoted >from >memory), IMO, he believes exactly that. a_svirn: It would have been quite plausible if he hadn't witness their comfortable prose together. But he did, didn't he? He stood there and listened to their talk for a good hour and however much he would want (supposedly) to believe Sirius a murderer he should have been dim-witted indeed to suppose that killing Harry was indeed his purpose. And Snape is no dimwit. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 23:32:55 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:32:55 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack, was Re: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142251 > Christina: > > A good *hour*? Snape enters on page 352 (US Hardcover) and reveals > himself on page 357. That's five pages. Act it out; Snape was > listening to Lupin for less than 10 minutes. a_svirn: Surely not? You probably can read it in ten or even less minutes, but acting it out? Why, only listening to the cricked door would take a couple of minutes. And even if it was less than an hour it was still quite enough to realise that the kids were not in any danger from Sirius and Lupin. > Christina: > > As Colebiancardi said, Snape is not dead-set on bringing Sirius > directly to the Dementors. He expresses a good deal of fairness in > the "Two more for Azkaban" and "Give me a reason" comments. As a > matter of fact, I'd say that Snape's actions are more merciful than > Lupins and Sirius's. Snape might *threaten* to give Sirius to the > dementors directly, but he clearly mentions handing him (and Lupin) > over to the authorities first. a_svirn: I wouldn't call it "fairness", myself. Wherein do you see fairness? Yes, he did at first considered bringing them to Fudge, but he changed his mind as soon as he realised that it would give Sirius chance to clear his name. You think it's fair? I wonder. > Christina: What to Lupin and Sirius do when they > are in the exact same situation? a_svirn: The fact that Sirius and Lupin were bent on revenge does not mean that Snape was a Sheltered Innocence Personified. The only innocent persons in the Shack were Harry, Ron and Hermione From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 23:39:39 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:39:39 -0000 Subject: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "curlyhornedsnorkack" 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? ... > > 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 bboyminn: Dumbledore explain it all near the end of Chapter 23. He explains that the prophecy is important because Voldemort believes it to be important, and as long as Voldemort sets great stock in it, then it has /great stock/. --- HBP; Am Ed, HB, Pg 512 --- "Of course you would!" cried Dumbledore. "You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! But the prophecy caused Lord Voldemort to mark you as his equal. ... In other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy! But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy. He will continue to hunt you . . . which makes it certain, really, that ?" "That one of us is going to end up killing the other," said Harry. "Yes." But he understood at last what Dumbledore had been trying to tell him. It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumble-dore knew ? and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents ? that there was all the difference in the world. - - - end quote - - - That doesn't cover it all, the conversation is quite long, but it summurises it nicely. 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 From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 00:29:56 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:29:56 -0000 Subject: Snape in Shrieking Shack WAS: Re: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > as far as I am concerned, Dumbledore's words in GoF "Severus is no > more a Death Eater than I am" is canon. Phoenixgod2000: Course it is. The words did indeed pass by the lips of Albus Dumbledore, but that does mean they are true :) It is also canon that DD isn't perfect and Snape is a really good liar. >You may NOT know, but I am pretty darn sure :) Harry is pretty darn sure that Snape is Eeeevvvillll too. We are all pretty sure about out interpretation of the greasy git. That's part of reason I haven't been posting anything lately. I just don't have that much to say anymore. The story keeps narrowing and all the fun stuff I like to argue about (Snape being a good/bad teacher, the lack of merits to Ginny W., Dumbledore doing right by Harry) just don't matter anymore. Snape is a murderer, his teaching methods are meaningless now, Ginny is apparently Harry's soul mate-ugh!!!, and DD is dead. All that is left is the remaining plot points and that is stuff we just aren't ever goin to be able to figure out. anyway, my two cents a kinda down semi-divine phoenix From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 01:26:54 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:26:54 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142254 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Then, of course, ... Molly has had to venture into town on a few > > occasions (calling a cab, getting Ron to a phone, buying stamps > > for the letter they mailed to Harry) so obviously the townsfolk > > know the Weasleys exist. ... > > > > I have a feeling that any wizard or wizarding family is looked > > on as a strange person or family that keep themselves to > > themselves in the neigborhoods they reside in. There might a > > bit of protective magic thrown in (notice-me-not or something > > like that) to keep door-to-door salesmen away, but I doubt they > > all live so totally isolated that Muggles are completely unaware > > of them. > >>bboyminn: > > I've always analogized the Wizard World to Chinatown. Many Chinese > move to London, or San Franscico, or New York, and find themselve > in a foreign and unfamiliar culture, so they seek out others of a > culture similar to their own, and gravitate to places like > Chinatown... > > Now, it's not impossible for them to venture out of Chinatown, but > they do so with great hesitation. > > In the rare but notable cases where a wizard lives in a muggle > neighborhood, I believe it is either very urban and impersonal, so > you don't have to know your neighbors, or it's remote like the > Weasleys. Friendly comfortable safe suburbs don't seem likely for > most wizard. > Betsy Hp: I've always liked this analogy of yours, but in thinking about it, I don't think it quite works. Because Chinatown is known. It's not a hidden place at all. And the main thing, the guiding principle of wizarding life, is to remain so completely hidden your existence is seen as a mere myth. So it's not so much maintaining your culture, or staying where things are comfortable and/or safe, it's hiding. I get the sense (especially after the opening chapter and the stuff on the Gaunts in HBP) that wizards generally *don't* live around each other. The Weasleys are isolated. The Blacks seemed to be the only wizards in their neighborhood. Hogsmeade is described as an anomaly. Diagon Alley and Knockturn Alley are both rather small, especially if they're compared to a city's Chinatown (or Little Italy, or what have you). During the QWC, Arthur says, "We can't resist showing off when we get together." (GoF scholastic hardback p.79) Which leaves the impression (at least IMO) that wizards don't tend to gather as a group. And I think it *would* be easier to hide how different you are from your neighbors if there's only you, or just your immediate family. One eccentric on the block (or in the neighborhood) is not too remarkable. And entire enclave of them becomes a bit more noticable, I would think. Betsy Hp From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sat Oct 29 01:38:23 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:38:23 -0000 Subject: Jet of green light in D.O.M. battle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142255 O.M.G. I was just re-reading the D.O.M. battle scene before going to bed when I figured this passage could have a meaning I'd never thought of, before: 'Nice one! shouted Sirius, forcing Harry's head down as a pair of Stunning Spells flew toward him. 'Now I want you to get out of _' A jet of green light had narrowly missed Sirius; across the room Harry saw Tonks fall from halfway up the stone steps, her limp form toppling from stone seat to stone seat, and Bellatrix, triumphant, running back toward he fray.' Of course I always had understood this scene as Bellatrix killing Tonks. BUT!!!!!!!!!! Please notice (what I've just noticed): - The 'jet of green light' and Tonks's fall are in the same sentence. Why use a ' ; ' mark instead of a ' . ' ?? Probably doesn't mean anything and is a choice of just punctuation. But still. - Whatever punctuation JKR used, she chose to write two apparently unconnected bits of info in a straight, unbroken sequence. Could she have had a reason to do that? Throwing in info about Tonks in that specific moment seems weird! - The jet of green light misses Sirius. We are not told what it hits _ it IS bound to hit something eventually or it just would go on forever. - Sirius is next to Harry, who is across the room from Tonks. Therefore, the jet of green light that narrowly missed Sirius could have continued its trajectory in Tonks's direction (of course all directions are possible!). - We are not told of any spell Bellatrix might have cast upon Tonks. We are simply told Tonks falls and Bellatrix is happy about it. - If the jet of green light indeed hits Tonks, Sirius might have seen it happen. He never finishes his sentence ' Now I want you to get out of _' : either because he ducked the jet of green light or because he was in shock to see Tonks get hit, or for both reasons. In short: the jet of green light that missed Sirius could have hit Tonks. Avada Kedavra is green. Tonks might have died in OotP. She could have been THE death in OotP. Now, JKR's interview just before OotP's release, about the death in B5 (we all know that one of course): "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". She re-wrote and re-wrote the death. Possibly because it was a tricky scene to write? If the death in OotP was Tonks, then it was definitely super-tricky. Now for the odds against it... huge ones I know. Sirius. Veil. Sirius is a more important character and she cried over the character's death, she wouldn't hve cried if the death was Tonks's. Tonks seems sort of alive in HBP. Oh boy. It's late (almost midnight here!) and writing a big case would make this such a long post. Of course there are arguments that overrule the odds above (most of them found in previous posts here). But I'll wait and see if anyone's interested, and of course I'll have some more time to write the thing properly! Yawns hugely Lucianam From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Oct 28 23:28:13 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:28:13 -0000 Subject: Time Turners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142256 UNIX4EVR wrote: >> (snip) > I know you can't bring someone back from the dead. We've been told > this about Harry's parents. > > BUT apparently you can go back in time and change events so they > never happened. I'm thinking of Buckbeak's execution. Harry, Ron > and Hermione used her time turner to go back in time and save > Buckbeak who HAD been killed. > > Get where I'm going with this??? > > Is is feasible that JKR could have Harry go back in time to warn > Dumbledore and thus save his life? > Yes, and not only Buckbeak and Dumbledore, but also Sirius, James and Lily, Cedric... It doesn't make any sense. If you can go back in time and fix everything, we wouldn't have a plot _ so of course you CAN'T use the Time-Turner to fix all the world's wrongs. Which brings me to the point: why did Dumbledore allow, or even, suggest, that Harry and Hermione would go back in Time and change history, that particular time? Why was it ok then, but not ok, say, to save Cedric or Sirius or Harry's parents? I fear JKR will not address this particular problem, but I wish she did. It is absurd that you can go back in time and fix something for no particularly better reason than you'd have to want to fix everything that has ever went wrong. Lucianam From Nanagose at aol.com Sat Oct 29 02:08:07 2005 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:08:07 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack, was Re: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142257 > > Christina: > > > > A good *hour*? Snape enters on page 352 (US Hardcover) and > > reveals himself on page 357. That's five pages. Act it out; > > Snape was listening to Lupin for less than 10 minutes. > > a_svirn: > Surely not? You probably can read it in ten or even less minutes, > but acting it out? Why, only listening to the cricked door would > take a couple of minutes. And even if it was less than an hour it > was still quite enough to realise that the kids were not in any > danger from Sirius and Lupin. Christina: First of all, the scene is nearly 100% dialogue. It's practically a monologue. Here is all of the actual action that occurs (including things that happened while somebody was speaking): (all from PoA, US Hardcover, pages 353-357) 1. "Lupin broke off. There had been a loud creak behind him. The bedroom door had opened of its own accord. All five of them stared at it. Then Lupin strode toward it an looked out into the landing." 2. "...said Lupin, still looking at the door in a puzzled way." 3. "He pushed his graying hair out of his eyes, thought for a moment, then said..." 4. "He looked sober and tired. Ron started to interrupt, but Hermione said, 'Shh!' She was watching Lupin very intently..." 5. "...Lupin sighed and looked directly at Harry..." 6. "Harry couldn't see where this story was going, but he was listening raptly all the same. The only sound apart from Lupin's voice was Scabbers's frightened squeaking." 7. "...snarled Black, who was still watching Scabbers with a horrible sort of hunger on his face." 8. "Lupin's face hardened, and there was self-disgust in his voice." 9. "...said Black harshly, taking his eyes off Scabbers for the first time in minutes and looking up at Lupin." 10. "He looked up at Harry, Ron, and Hermione" 11. "Black made a derisive noise." That's it. Most of these are describing the characters and are *not* action-based. Everyone is basically standing around the whole time. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 all describe a character looking at another character (usually done while somebody is speaking). 4 and 8 are descriptive statements. 6 is also descriptive (giving us Harry's status during the speech and telling us that Pettigrew is squeaking in the background) and takes place while the rest of the action is going on. The only actual "action" that happens in this whole span comes from 1 and 3. I doubt that it took Lupin very long to brush the hair out of his eyes, and it says that he only looked thoughtful for a "moment." As for number 1, even if everyone in the room looked at the door dumbstruck for 5 minutes, this entire scene still wouldn't be *close* to an hour long. When I said to act it out, I'm wasn't joking- I grabbed a couple girls from next door and blocked it out (even though most of it was spent standing around, just like in the scene). It took 7 1/2 minutes, and that included somebody walking by and asking what in the world we were doing. And the kids *were* in danger. They were put in a very dangerous position by Lupin himself. Think about it: Snape goes to give Lupin his goblet of potion (which he needs to avoid turning into a dangerous werewolf), but Lupin is missing. Snape sees that Lupin has gone to his old childhood hangout. Snape enters the room to see Lupin with a *convicted murderer* who is his childhood buddy. Snape knows that Sirius has been entering the castle and doing very convicted!murderer-like things like slashing a child's bedcurtains while standing over him with a knife. Snape then finds out that Sirius has accomplished this by using his Animagus form, information that Lupin has kept all to himself. We see things from Harry's point of view in the books, but from Snape's point of view, things look different, and Lupin and Sirius look very, very guilty. (And again, the kids were in definite danger). > > Christina: > > > > As Colebiancardi said, Snape is not dead-set on bringing Sirius > > directly to the Dementors. He expresses a good deal of fairness > > in the "Two more for Azkaban" and "Give me a reason" comments. As > > a matter of fact, I'd say that Snape's actions are more merciful > > than Lupins and Sirius's. Snape might *threaten* to give Sirius > > to the dementors directly, but he clearly mentions handing him > > (and Lupin) over to the authorities first. > > a_svirn: > > I wouldn't call it "fairness", myself. Wherein do you see fairness? > Yes, he did at first considered bringing them to Fudge, but he > changed his mind as soon as he realised that it would give Sirius > chance to clear his name. You think it's fair? I wonder. Christina: The fact that Snape suggests sending Sirius and Lupin to Azkaban *at all* suggests to me a sense of justice. Snape asking Sirius to give him a reason suggests to me a sense of law and order. Why does Snape need a reason? If Snape really wanted to shut Sirius up *that* badly, why didn't he dispel with the pleasantries and get on with it? He didn't even need to get outside- a well-placed AK would have done the trick ("It was horrible, Minister, Black just lunged toward Potter; he would have certainly died, sir, had I not stepped in"). And if noAK!Snape is your flavor, what about something a bit milder, like Sectumsempra? Snape could have then "modified" Harry, Ron, and Hermione's memories, and nobody would have been the wiser. That would have been the quickest way of shutting everybody up. To be honest, I *highly* doubt Snape would have been able to get Sirius back to the castle even if he wanted to. Sirius had barely been outside when "at least a *hundred*" dementors converged on him. > > Christina: > What to Lupin and Sirius do when they > > are in the exact same situation? > > a_svirn: > The fact that Sirius and Lupin were bent on revenge does not mean > that Snape was a Sheltered Innocence Personified. The only innocent > persons in the Shack were Harry, Ron and Hermione > Christina: Nowhere have I said that I think that Snape is pure as the morning. He *couldn't* purposefully sic the dementors on Sirius- Snape might hate Sirius, but he's not stupid (he is a Slytherin, after all...self preservation is highly prioritized). Snape wasn't going to give in to hatred when he could return Sirius to Fudge- look at the praise he gets! Look at the medal he is offered! He even gets to whisper a bit in Fudges's ear about how much everyone has been spoiling Harry. Sirius Black is still going to get his soul sucked out. It's Christmas morning in Snapeland. One of your original points was that Snape's hatred of Sirius isn't enough to explain why he wanted him finished with so quickly (and why he ignored Sirius's pleadings to consider him innocent), so you hypothesized that Snape must have known all along about Pettigrew. My central point is that, if you read the end of PoA from *Snape's* point of view, his actions are extremely reasonable and understandable. There is no reason for Snape to doubt his beliefs. I'm not talking about innocence and guilt- I am saying that his actions make sense and are even less extreme than the actions of Lupin and Sirius when faced with the exact same situation. Christina From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 02:22:23 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:22:23 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142258 > >>Hickengruendler: > > The Dementors still had to be somewhere close. Harry didn't drive > > them away from the grounds. And they were meant to protect the > > Hogwarts grounds after all. > >>a_svirn: > Harry drove the far enough nevertheless: > "What amazes me most is the behavior of the dementors... you've > really no idea what made them retreat, Snape?" > "No, Minister... by the time I had come 'round they were heading > back to their positions at the entrances...." > Also as Carol very rightly pointed out there was a werewolf out > there at large. So no, a search for a Dementor wasn't an option at > the time much to Snape's regret. Betsy Hp: Why does Snape need a dementor? If he's ESE or bent on revenge or especially trying to hide Peter's true role in the Potters' death, why not just kill Sirius himself? He could kill Sirius, knock out Harry and then hunt down and kill Lupin, if he so desires. Actually, I'm kind of wondering why Snape felt he had to wait for Sirius to give him a reason back in the Shack, if he's evil and all. > >>a_svirn: > There is even less indication that only Bellatrix knew about > Wormtail, and that she had been more trusted follower than Snape. > For one thing Sirius actually said: > "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" > (emphasis mine). > Betsy Hp: Bellatrix (and those who came to Azkaban with her) would have realized there was a *double-crosser*. I don't think it's clear that they knew exactly who the double-crosser was. Maybe the Death Eaters knew there was a spy but didn't know the spy's identity. > >>Carol: > > and his belief (clung to stubbornly, but he's > > believed it for twelve years) that Sirius Black is a dangerous > > murderer whom Lupin has been helping into the castle. When Snape > > tells Harry, "I just saved your life. You should be grateful" > > (quoted from memory), IMO, he believes exactly that. > >>a_svirn: > It would have been quite plausible if he hadn't witness their > comfortable prose together. > Betsy Hp: One man's "comfortable pose" is another man's "confunded audience". Reading through the scene again (after the door creak and before Snape's reveal) it seems plausible (IMO) that Snape really did think the children were confunded. Hermione is decribed as looking at Lupin "intently", Harry "raptly". Lupin talks and talks and talks. Black is staring at Ron (Scabbers really, but to Snape I think it could look like Ron) "with a horrible sort of hunger on his face" (PoA hardback scholastic p.355). Black also snarls a couple of times (once just before Snape comes through the creaky door), and seems impatient for the talking to be over so the killing can begin (which, he actually kind of is). Remember, Snape is sure (and Lupin admits) that Lupin has completely fooled *Dumbledore*. Snape is wary enough of Lupin to actually back out of a room Lupin is in. It's not a stretch at all, IMO, to think that Lupin *has* cast a spell on the children so that they will be more easily taken (or so they remain in the Shack long enough for him to transform). > >>Christina: > > A good *hour*? Snape enters on page 352 (US Hardcover) and > > reveals himself on page 357. That's five pages. Act it out; > > Snape was listening to Lupin for less than 10 minutes. > >>a_svirn: > Surely not? You probably can read it in ten or even less minutes, > but acting it out? Why, only listening to the cricked door would > take a couple of minutes. Betsy Hp: It doesn't really take a couple of minutes to walk through a door. I also have a hard time seeing Sirius patiently waiting for Lupin to drone on for an hour. Or for Lupin to drone on for an hour without getting thirsty. Or for Ron (with his broken leg) able to hold onto a desperate to escape rat for an hour. There's really no action in this scene. Lupin just talks. The kids stare at him in captivation. Black stares at the kids with murder in his eyes, and then Harry starts to get all dewy-eyed about his father. > >>Christina: > > As Colebiancardi said, Snape is not dead-set on bringing Sirius > > directly to the Dementors. He expresses a good deal of fairness > > in the "Two more for Azkaban" and "Give me a reason" comments. > > As a matter of fact, I'd say that Snape's actions are more > > merciful than Lupins and Sirius's. Snape might *threaten* to > > give Sirius to the dementors directly, but he clearly mentions > > handing him (and Lupin) over to the authorities first. > >>a_svirn: > I wouldn't call it "fairness", myself. Wherein do you see fairness? > Yes, he did at first considered bringing them to Fudge, but he > changed his mind as soon as he realised that it would give Sirius > chance to clear his name. You think it's fair? I wonder. Betsy Hp: Or did Snape change his mind when Sirius expressed such an eagerness to get to the castle? The same Sirius who managed to blow up a street before? Perhaps Snape thinks Sirius has something up his sleeve. We don't get to see into Snape's mind, so really, any scenario works. But the fact that he feels he needs a *reason* to kill Sirius, the fact that he wants to turn the criminals over to the authorities (and the dementors, creepy as they are, are the authorities) does suggest a certain obedience to the law. At least, IMO. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 02:55:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:55:14 -0000 Subject: Jet of green light in D.O.M. battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142259 lucianam wrote: > > O.M.G. > I was just re-reading the D.O.M. battle scene before going to bed > when I figured this passage could have a meaning I'd never thought of, before: > > > A jet of green light had narrowly missed Sirius; across the room > Harry saw Tonks fall from halfway up the stone steps, her limp form > toppling from stone seat to stone seat, and Bellatrix, triumphant, running back toward he fray.' > > - The 'jet of green light' and Tonks's fall are in the same > sentence. > Why use a ' ; ' mark instead of a ' . ' ?? Probably doesn't mean > anything and is a choice of just punctuation. But still. > > - Whatever punctuation JKR used, she chose to write two apparently > unconnected bits of info in a straight, unbroken sequence. Could she > have had a reason to do that? Throwing in info about Tonks in that > specific moment seems weird! > > - The jet of green light misses Sirius. We are not told what it hits > _ it IS bound to hit something eventually or it just would go on > forever. > > > In short: the jet of green light that missed Sirius could have hit > Tonks. Avada Kedavra is green. Tonks might have died in OotP. She > could have been THE death in OotP. Carol responds: I'm pretty sure that Sirius Black is the death in OoP and that Tonks is still alive (we hear in OoP that she's recovering and we see her, oddly but explicably changed in HBP). However, I think you've hit on something very important. *Not every "jet of green light" is an Avada Kedavra. (Ron's "Eat slugs!" spell is one example.) Whatever this spell is, maybe it's the one that Snape used on the tower, disguised as an AK. At any rate, the existence of a nonlethal spell that casts a green light adds fuel to that fire. And note that this is a "jet," not a "blinding flash," and that there's no rushing sound, not to mention that it hits Tonks without killing her as no real AK would do. Nor is it likely to be a half-hearted AK. Bella has what it takes to cast a real AK (the will and the power). I'm guessing that some of the jets of green light that tear up the statuary in the battle between DD and LV are this same unidentified spell. Probably not even Voldemort can send a series of AKs without expending a great deal of power, and when we've seen him cast an AK, it's always been verbal. Darn these unidentifiable nonverbal spells! What could the spell that injures Tonks be? And what was that purple one cast silently by Dolohov that sent Hermione to the hospital wing? Carol, noting that the last question is rhetorical as we simply don't have sufficient information to answer it From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 02:58:24 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:58:24 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142260 > Betsy Hp: > Why does Snape need a dementor? If he's ESE or bent on revenge or > especially trying to hide Peter's true role in the Potters' death, > why not just kill Sirius himself? He could kill Sirius, knock out > Harry and then hunt down and kill Lupin, if he so desires. > Actually, I'm kind of wondering why Snape felt he had to wait for > Sirius to give him a reason back in the Shack, if he's evil and all. Alla: Oh, I think Snape chose a PERFECT revenge on Sirius. I wonder, what Sirius would have preferred, if asked - to be killed fast with AK or to be put back to the Dementors, who made you so miserable and eventually insane, that is if we assume that Sirius would not have received kiss right away. I believe that after spending twelve years in Dementors company , Sirius really really did not want to see them again. > > Betsy Hp: > Bellatrix (and those who came to Azkaban with her) would have > realized there was a *double-crosser*. I don't think it's clear > that they knew exactly who the double-crosser was. Maybe the Death > Eaters knew there was a spy but didn't know the spy's identity. Alla: But it IS a reasonable interpretation of Sirius' words that they indeed knew, won't you agree? I wonder how Snape is different from them that he did not know, if they indeed knew, of course. > Betsy Hp: But the fact that he feels he needs a *reason* to > kill Sirius, the fact that he wants to turn the criminals over to > the authorities (and the dementors, creepy as they are, are the > authorities) does suggest a certain obedience to the law. At least, > IMO. Alla: It can also suggest that Snape likes his revenge served with the audience around and praising him as hero in the meantime, at least IMO. Oh, I also want to make a belated note to Hickengruendler. You are right, I am wrong. Somebody pointed me to the right quote about Snape admitting that Trio overpowered him. It is at the beginning of Chapter 21 of PoA. It looks to me that he is admitting to less than what really happened, but it is of course an admission. "Order of Merlin, Second class, I'd say. First class, if I can wangle it!" "Thank you very much indeed, Minister." "Nasty cut you've got there.... Black's work, I suppose?" " As a matter of fact, it was Potter, Weasley and Granger, Minister..." - PoA, p.386. JMO, Alla From rbeache at earthlink.net Fri Oct 28 19:47:23 2005 From: rbeache at earthlink.net (Rachel Ellington) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:47:23 -0400 Subject: Prophecy References: <1130394702.2326.74194.m34@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001401c5dbf8$6af2b330$6801a8c0@IBME69E742C294> No: HPFGUIDX 142261 I've just been listening to OOTP and have just finished the bit where Dumbledore shows Harry the prophecy from the pensieve. I am also a few days behind, so forgive this response if it repeats anything that has already been said. Sweety12783 says: "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . . . and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . ." I think that the statement means that the one marked as an equal will have to die by the hand of the other in order for LV to be fully mortal (hence "... for neither can live while the other survives...) RE: I have been reading the prophecy, in fact most of the office scene, in a fairly straightforward manner. Unfortunately, I do not have the creative imagination that many readers do! In the office scene, Dumbledore basically tells Harry that Voldermort has made this a self fulfiling prophecy because V. believed Harry to be the ONE who could kill him. Interestingly, Harry, as the Daily Prophet calls him, is the "Chosen One" because Voldemort chose him first. We do see, however (IMHO), that Harry possesses something that Neville does not, whether inherent or due to upbringing. I agree w/ Expectopatronnie that neither Harry or LV are living what could be considered a full life: they are both consumed by the other. Currently, both lives are focused on killing (LV)/defeating (H) the other. I believe Dumbledore tells Harry (Chap 37 OOTP?) that one or the other must die... Dumbledore tells us clearly what differentiates Harry from LV: his ability to love others. Harry's antics have mostly been undertaken to shield/protect others or avenge the dead: his wish to simply have the sorcerer's stone; his desperation to save Ginny from the CoS; his overdone success at saving the kids from the Mer people; his endeavort to save Sirius at the MoM; his attempt to strike Snape as he flees Hogwarts. Expectopatronnie: has Harry unknowingly forged some kind magic on LV. Maybe even some kind of ancient magic LV dispises so much. (LV overlooked ancient magic when he killed Lily he could do it again can't he?) RE: I think this is a great question, but I would hope that Dumbledore would have included this in his "confession" to Harry in OOTP, but who knows! One thing I think we overlook is that Lily did not "perform" the magic that protects Harry, but that Dumbledore used this magic to place protection on Harry (not sure of exact reference, Chap 37 Lost Prophecy, US edition). RE, quite interested to see how the prophecy plays out and hopes Snape is not involved! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 03:33:19 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:33:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Harry's Power/Mindlock and Fire/Air/Water: WAS Fire Air and Water In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142262 Sorry for the lateness of the reply AyanEva. My son just turned nine! > 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. > >Valky: > > And No because I don't think the character of Snape is intended to > > fulfill any role of draining something from someone, that would be > > Voldemort's territory, I would classify Snape far more passively > > than that. So in that sense he is not feeding in a literal way but > > rather observing, very keenly. > > > AyanEva again: > Vampire!Snape rears it's head (only it's the emotion-feeding > Vampire). > Yes, I'm joking, and no I don't believe that. Not anymore anyway... Valky: Oh woah!, maybe I was too hasty there! You could be onto something, in the sense that the overgrown bat/vampire allusion *always did* have abstract meaning. Lets analyse. In Book one Harry is told that Love resides in his very skin, the gift of his mother's sacrifice, before too long this is carried over into the all important protection he has where Lily's blood dwells, finally it all spills over into the prophecy as it pertains to Godrics Hollow and the power that the Dark Lord knows not. 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? AyanEva: > *grin* Though, I'm still curious about all of the bat references. Valky: Me too, I would hate to dismiss something that consistent altogether, but I did hesitate on Vampire!Snape. > > AyanEva: > Wait, I'm confused about how the mindlock and lack of focus relate. Valky: No problem. Let's say for the sake of arguing it that Harry and Snape became tangled up in each others minds during Occlumency. After Harry saw into the pensieve Snape ignored him for the rest of the year except for two or three moments (when Snape dropped Harry's potion, in Umbridges office, and with Draco at the end.) In these three we do see minimal interaction between them and we start to see vague hints of them being better aware of each other. The hints are not strong, but if JKR was going to carry over phenomenon from one book to other again, like the thestrals, I am sure she'd want it to be minimally unbelievable this time, so lets say the very vague hints of the changed relationship are leading up to a kind of mind tangle between them. I could be sounding ridiculous, but I'll keep up the line just a little longer. The way I see it, if they became mind locked during OOtP then it could easily be a dynamic evolving phenomenon that reaches its peak around the end of HBP. I would guess that each time they were together, the more Snape delved into Harry's thoughts and feelings to gain the insight he wanted, and the more Harry projected his thoughts and feelings at Snape the tighter they got locked into it. 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 so that there was *only* Snape. I would suspect, if there was anything to the mindlock theory, then Snapes very prescence is consuming of Harry's focus this way. Of course, I think this theory works best as a kind of model of their emotional development rather than as top layer plotting, still it looks cool either way IMO. > AyanEva: > Ok, you lost me. Can you rephrase this? I'm not sure what the theory > is. [below] Valky: No probs! > > > >Valky: > > but otherwise the strongest theory here is his loud aura > > transmissions. Perhaps even getting louder when he chases Snape > > because of his emotions there. 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. Hence explaining how in the toolshed full of spiders at the Weasleys Harry's emotions get stirred talking about how he will fight to the death and Dumbledore starts being aware of Harry's thoughts and feelings, and at the Hogwarts gates while Harry fumes internally at Snape his thoughts and feelings start becoming detectable, finally in the last battle scenes Harry is obviously overwhelmed by emotion so of course Snape can hear every word he thinks. Valky: > OTOH it is this scene that most > > strongly pushes me to blend the three theories into a unified one, > > where Harry's loud aura is a result of tapping into his power in > > an uncontrolled way, Valky: Again, I borrow from your theory that Harry's encounter with possession sparked the power out of him, and as it is with most of Harry's new powers, he doesn't control them well to begin with. So at this stage, although he doesn't realise it this loud aura is a part of his Love power and he is projecting it around unknowingly and uncontrolledly through the year. He may or may not start to become aware of it before too long, but at some stage he will have to harness it, perhaps he will channel it to project in a similar manner to the wand echoes in GOF. (I know there were some here who loved that concept recently, and I suppose that it may be so.) Valky: > his sympathies crossed with his determination to > never forgive Snape are causing fuzziness in it around Snape This is fairly straightforward once we clarify that this aura is emotionally fuelled. Harry has both sympathies and anger when it comes to Snape, in fact he has probably the *most* confused feelings of all here, as it is Snape that comes between Harry and his love for his father and Sirius, the confuddlement of Harry's feelings when it comes to Snape would surely cause him mixed emotions. And it's also possible that Snape now has mixed emotions about Harry after seeing ithin his mind. So in this way it makes sense to imagine that they have tangled themselves up in this shared confusion - hence the mindlock. Valky: > > and finally that there was a focussed use of Harry's love power in > >the Occlumency lessons which demonstrates the correct control of it I do believe that this is one of two magnificent examples of Harry using his power. Interestingly, both times he is calling only on his love for Sirius to achieve it. I wonder, just imagine with me if you will, what it could do if Harry was to call upon the love of Sirius Dumbledore James and Lily and his dearest friends, all at once. It makes white-faced panting Snape look like a scratched knee. :D > AyanEva: > I like this interpretation of the love power concept; it makes it > resemble velveeta a little less. Valky: Oh me too! I am hanging on to it, tightly, more Biff! less Cheese! I think we all love Tough!Harry and would hate him to go sappy on us > Me: > Ok, I understood how Harry/Snape unbalance each other. But I'm lost > again on the bit [below] about how Harry/Snape balance. Can do! Valky: > > One good way to balance elements is to show a complimentary cycle > > between them. The cycle of earth air fire water, is how they balance. Air fuels Fire fuels Earth (Ash) fuels Water (respiration) fuels Air. Combinations can move in smaller cycles, and the combination of Fire/Water - Earth/Water has a cycle that works. Hence Harry and Snape *could* be really good for each other in a balanced cycle of working together. > the cycle between Fire/Water and Air/Water runs like > this. The Air lifts the fire (Snape-->Harry), the fire raises steam > from the first water(Harry->Harry), the second water cools the steam > > (Harry->Snape), and some air particles escape back to balance the > > air (Snape --> Snape). Harry and Snape's resolution will probably > > follow this cycle. Okay the above explains how the elemants interact in the cycle : Snape's Air feeds Harry's fire which can throw Harry out of balance by converting his cooling water element to hot steam. In a balanced cycle Harry will vent this heat at Snape (in their resolution look for Harry to be mad as hell!) and it is Snapes water element which needs to be thrown at Harry to make the cycle balance. As we know Snape usually pushes his air element at Harry's hot headedness, not water, normally Snape responds with dry sarcasm (Air), 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 with Snape and unbalances Snapes water element *this way* (<-- it's very important that its fuming Harry that makes Snape teary, or else no balance) Then Snape's water element will have an instant cooling effect on the steam, from this cooled down steam will escape fresh air 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! This would be the model for them achieving something positive as a team, but it's not likely to be something they can do more than once when you apply it to their fuller characters. Hence expect this to be the *last* thing Snape and Harry ever do together. :D Did that help? Valky From smilingator81 at aol.com Sat Oct 29 03:48:35 2005 From: smilingator81 at aol.com (smilingator4915) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:48:35 -0000 Subject: Time Turners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: > > It doesn't make any sense. If you can go back in time and fix > everything, we wouldn't have a plot _ so of course you CAN'T use > the Time-Turner to fix all the world's wrongs. > > Which brings me to the point: why did Dumbledore allow, or even, > suggest, that Harry and Hermione would go back in Time and change > history, that particular time? Why was it ok then, but not ok, say, > to save Cedric or Sirius or Harry's parents? > > I fear JKR will not address this particular problem, but I wish she > did. It is absurd that you can go back in time and fix something for > no particularly better reason than you'd have to want to fix > everything that has ever went wrong. smilingator: This issue seems to pop up every few weeks... and it all depends on how you view time travel in the Potterverse. If you believe that when Hermione and Harry traveled back in time and CHANGED the events that happened (i.e., saved Buckbeak from death after he had already died, rescued Sirius after he had already been "kissed"), then you would definitely find it "absurd" that you can go back in time to fix some things but not everything that goes wrong. However, I believe that JKR provided more than enough evidence that when Harry and Hermione used the time turners, they did not "change" anything. I think that we saw the same events happen, but from two different points of view. However, if you read CAREFULLY, you can see that the second perspective we observed was no different than the first time we witnessed the events. In other words, the first time we were privy to the observations, we THOUGHT Buckbeak was killed and we THOUGHT Sirius was going to be kissed by the dementor and we WONDERED who saved Harry, Hermione, and Sirius from the dementors by the lake. However, from the second time we viewed the story, is was KNOWN that Buckbeak was not killed, we KNEW Sirius was rescued and flew away on Buckbeak and we KNEW Harry that time travelled saved non-time travelling Harry, Hermione, and Sirius. Complicated, yes... but that's what I love about this book! I thought JKR did an outstaning job of fooling me the first time with the events and then throwing in the time travelling twist and carefully placing clues that showed that the events NEVER changed; we just viewed them from two different perspectives. So, why can't Harry just time turn and save Dumbledore and Sirius (besides the fact that it seems the time turners were destroyed)? Because you can't change what happened in the past. Like I said, this issue has been debated countless times and no one has ever changed their mind on how they believe time travelling works... I kind of wish JKR had never written that the time turners were destroyed or that wizards could kill their past or future selves because I think that's what is throwing a lot of people off from what she tried to do. But, although she created an incredible world, she is still human and writers make mistakes too. smilingator... who is counting down the days until GoF hits the theatres From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 04:02:26 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:02:26 -0000 Subject: Time Turners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142264 lucianam wrote: > It doesn't make any sense. If you can go back in time and fix > everything, we wouldn't have a plot _ so of course you CAN'T use > the Time-Turner to fix all the world's wrongs. > > Which brings me to the point: why did Dumbledore allow, or even, > suggest, that Harry and Hermione would go back in Time and change > history, that particular time? Why was it ok then, but not ok, say, > to save Cedric or Sirius or Harry's parents? zgirnius: Do we know that Buckbeak died in Chapter 16 of PoA? I would say that the answer to that is, no. Which means that a possible solution to your question is that Buckbeak did not die, ever. And Dumbledore, who was present at Hagrid's hut with the executioner and Fudge, knew that Buckbeak had escaped, despite having been tied in place. And being a clever wizard, Dumbledore wondered how Buckbeak might have escaped. He could, of course, have somehow, against all probability, freed himself. But I'm sure McGonagall would have discussed obtaining a Time-Turner for a student with Dumbledore, so he knew Hermione had it. When he learned of the Sirius fiasco, he saw the Time-Turner as a way that Harry and Hermione might buy time to work out a plan to save Sirius (who was not yet dead or Dementored, just locked in a tower). And once he started thinking along those lines, it occurred to him that one reason Bucky might have been able to escape was if someone had freed him...this is why he said to Hermione "If all goes well, you will be able to save more than one innocent life tonight". He didn't want to tell her straight out what to do, in case he was wrong. In which case he would be breaking the Time Turner rules by changing the past. But, as it happens, he was right. The reason Bucky had escaped *was* that time-turned Harry and Hermione had been there to rescue him. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 29 04:20:21 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:20:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turners References: Message-ID: <011801c5dc40$14d2e3b0$7778400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 142265 smilingator4915: > This issue seems to pop up every few weeks... and it all depends on > how you view time travel in the Potterverse. If you believe that when > Hermione and Harry traveled back in time and CHANGED the events that > happened (i.e., saved Buckbeak from death after he had already died, > rescued Sirius after he had already been "kissed"), then you would > definitely find it "absurd" that you can go back in time to fix some > things but not everything that goes wrong. > However, I believe that JKR provided more than enough evidence that > when Harry and Hermione used the time turners, they did not "change" > anything. I think that we saw the same events happen, but from two > different points of view. However, if you read CAREFULLY, you can see > that the second perspective we observed was no different than the > first time we witnessed the events. In other words, the first time we > were privy to the observations, we THOUGHT Buckbeak was killed and we > THOUGHT Sirius was going to be kissed by the dementor and we WONDERED > who saved Harry, Hermione, and Sirius from the dementors by the lake. > However, from the second time we viewed the story, is was KNOWN that > Buckbeak was not killed, we KNEW Sirius was rescued and flew away on > Buckbeak and we KNEW Harry that time travelled saved non-time > travelling Harry, Hermione, and Sirius. > Complicated, yes... but that's what I love about this book! I thought > JKR did an outstaning job of fooling me the first time with the events > and then throwing in the time travelling twist and carefully placing > clues that showed that the events NEVER changed; we just viewed them > from two different perspectives. > So, why can't Harry just time turn and save Dumbledore and Sirius > (besides the fact that it seems the time turners were destroyed)? > Because you can't change what happened in the past. Magpie: Warning--twisty time-talk ahead... I assume this keeps coming up because what you described doesn't make any difference to the question of why Harry didn't use the Time Turner to save Sirius in OotP. This isn't a disagreement over how Time Turners work, but just a comment on how the author chooses to write the scene. It's not "the past" that didn't change in PoA at all, it's the narrative. Yes, the first time Harry and Hermione saw, without realizing it, Buckbeak being saved etc. But WHEN did Harry and Hermione do all that? They did it in the future, when the two of them decided to use the Time Turner. At the point Harry is "seeing" the false execution he has not yet made the decision to go back in time to save Buckbeak. The fact that Buckbeak never died at all within the narrative of PoA (we thought he did, but had we had a better pov the first time we would have seen Harry and Hermione save him then too) just tells us how the author decided to write it. From her god's eye perspective, she decided to show us the already changed future. She could just as easily have shown us Buckbeak dying, then have Harry go back in time and show us him saving Buckbeak, and just have everyone remember Harry as always having saved Buckbeak because the past was changed. So why can't they do that in in OotP? They can't just not do it because...they didn't do it. The fact that we don't see a Future!Harry saving Sirius shows us Harry never used the Time Turner, not that he couldn't--I mean, what would have happened if, moments after the battle, Harry had grabbed a Time Turner and gone back in time? I can see no reason why it wouldn't work. To say that the past can't be changed, and wasn't changed in PoA, is to deny Harry and Hermione's decision and action of using the Time Turner and saving Buckbeak by saying you can't use the Time Turner unless you are going to use the Time Turner. But when do you go from being a person who can't use the Time Turner to someone who is going to use it to someone who has used it and therefore can use it? The logic gets circular. For instance, from 10-11, let's say, Hermione takes Arithmancy. Then she uses the Time Turner to take Divinations. From Harry and Ron's pov, Hermione "always" took Divinations, because she experienced the hour with them. If Divinations and Arithmancy were in the same room we would see two Hermiones in the class, just as there were two Harrys and Hermiones in PoA. But from Hermione's perspective, she took Arithmancy *and then* she took Divination. She remembers two hours where everyone else remembers one. She remembers an hour when she took Arithmancy and had *not yet* taken Divination. When Hermione misses a lesson it's because she forgot to turn her clock back, not because she couldn't turn her clock back because she wasn't in the lesson--that's backwards. The reason Harry doesn't save Sirius in OotP with the use of the Time Turner is, I think, far more mundane: the Time Turners are all destroyed in the battle (symbolically, they can no longer go backwards, only forwards). And I think that was put in partially to answer this question, because there really is no other reason they can't use the things. Except to say that they can't do it because the author didn't write the scene that way, which isn't something the characters can be aware of themselves. -m From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Oct 29 05:14:26 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 05:14:26 -0000 Subject: Annoying interruptions... + Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142266 > > Anne says: > It's an interesting idea--quite appealing to the imagination--but I don't think Snape can > be Fawkes. If we believe Dumbledore's statement that Fawkes gave only two tail feathers > to Ollivander wands, and that those wands now belong to Voldemort and Harry, then it > follows that Fawkes is much older than Snape. Voldemort started Hogwarts in 1938, > according to the Lexicon, and Snape (also according to the Lexicon) wasn't born until > 1960. That said, the proponents of the Snape/Fawkes theory probably have some great > reasoning that will defy my logic. :) I'll give it a go! I might just convince myself of the plausibility of the following scenario if I keep this up. LOL :-D So, here goes: Snape could've stayed in bird form until 1960; we'll call him "Snawkes." All of this could be a scheme by Dumbledore, of course, because Dumbledore didn't trust Riddle. Once Dumbledore saw that Riddle was turning bad for real, he had to come up with a plan to thwart Riddle and infiltrate his circle. At this point, Dumbledore pulled Eileen in on the plan to pretend to be Snawks' mother. At the appropriate time, determined by Dumbledore, Snawkes appears on the scene as 11 year old Snape. Since we haven't found a birth announcement Severus Snape yet (have we? I think it was just the marriage announcement), this *proves* that Snape as Snape didn't exist until he hit the Hogwarts scene at 11 years old. It was always intended that he fit the role of a Knights of Walpurgis (or whatever it's called)/Death Eater follower, make it look like he repented and joined Dumbledore (although, he was always on DD's side), and then assumed his role as spy. See, they had to do it this way because they needed a way to get Snape close to Voldie and they needed a plausible explanation to tell the Order for how DD was getting inside information. Once they told the Order how the information was being obtained, they had to convince them that the source was reliable; hence the sob story of repentence. So, Snape, upon killing DD, has become Snawkes once more. Therefore, he can run away as Snape and still attend the funeral as Fawkes. And this is how Snape is going to get information to the Order and Harry; he's going to show up as Fawkes with a note tied 'round his leg because Fawkes is.... SNAWKES! :-D The end. AyanEva From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 06:53:31 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:53:31 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142267 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > Then, of course, ... Molly has had to venture into town on a few > > > occasions (calling a cab, getting Ron to a phone, buying stamps > > > for the letter they mailed to Harry) so obviously the townsfolk > > > know the Weasleys exist. ... > > > > > > > > > >>bboyminn: > > > > I've always analogized the Wizard World to Chinatown. ... > > > > Now, it's not impossible for them to venture out of Chinatown, but > > they do so with great hesitation. > > > > In the rare but notable cases where a wizard lives in a muggle > > neighborhood, I believe it is either very urban and impersonal, so > > you don't have to know your neighbors, or it's remote like the > > Weasleys. Friendly comfortable safe suburbs don't seem likely for > > most wizard. > > > Betsy Hp: > I've always liked this analogy of yours, but in thinking about it, I > don't think it quite works. Because Chinatown is known. It's not a > hidden place at all. And the main thing, the guiding principle of > wizarding life, is to remain so completely hidden your existence is > seen as a mere myth. So it's not so much maintaining your culture, > or staying where things are comfortable and/or safe, it's hiding. > bboyminn: Well, of course the analogy is flawed, I'm comparing a fantasy fictional world to the real world, but Chinatown does illustrate how on culture can exist somewhat isolated inside another culture. Also, keep in mind that my illustration can never do more than /illustrate/ because in the broad sense, the British wizard world and the muggle British world share the same history and language. When the Normans invaded, both wizard and muggle were invaded. When the English fought the Scottish, that like affected both muggle and magic. What affects one, in a broad historical context, affects both. So, even knowing that my /illustration/ is flawed, I think it still serves are a real world example that one smaller divergent culture can live isolated in another larger more pervasive culture. Also note that while it is the objective of the wizard world to remain /secret/, it is not necessarily their objective to remain hidden. We've seen wizards take train and subway rides. We've seen them walk the streets of muggle London. There is no problem with being seen in general, there is only a problem as being seens as a wizard or as magical. > Betsy Hp: > > I get the sense ...that wizards generally *don't* live around > each other. The Weasleys are isolated. The Blacks seemed to be the > only wizards in their neighborhood. Hogsmeade is described as an > anomaly. Diagon Alley and Knockturn Alley are both rather small, > especially if they're compared to a city's Chinatown (or Little > Italy, or what have you). > > ... And I think it *would* be easier to hide how different you > are from your neighbors if there's only you, or just your immediate > family. One eccentric on the block (or in the neighborhood) is not > too remarkable. And entire enclave of them becomes a bit more > noticable, I would think. > > Betsy Hp bboyminn: I think you've got a good point there. I suspect that part of the secrecy protection of the wizard world says the wizards don't gather together around muggles. Also, remember that there are only several thousand wizards at best (exact number can't be determine, not even by JKR). So, in reality, wizards are a much smaller minority that Chinese in the UK. On the other hand, 'birds of a feather flock together'. I can envision a magical family moving into a small obscure London neighborhood, and mentioning to a friend that a house just went up for sale. So the friend buys the house, and the next thing you know wizards dominate the neighborhood. If they are preforming even minor protections spells on their houses and gardens/yards, then perhaps the neighborhood takes on a very /uninteresting/ feel, and eventually more muggle move out. Next thing you know, you have an entire neighborhood dominated by wizards. Soon, there is a wizard's tea shop, and maybe a wizard's convenience store with mild muggle repelling charms on them. Of course, I admit, we don't see that in the books. All I am saying is that I can envision it. Steve/bboyminn From eileennicholson at aol.com Sat Oct 29 07:50:02 2005 From: eileennicholson at aol.com (eileen_nicholson) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:50:02 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >snip< > Betsy Hp: > One man's "comfortable pose" is another man's "confunded audience". > Reading through the scene again (after the door creak and > before Snape's reveal) it seems plausible (IMO) that Snape really > did think the children were confunded. >snip< > Remember, Snape is sure (and Lupin admits) that Lupin has completely > fooled *Dumbledore*. Snape is wary enough of Lupin to actually back > out of a room Lupin is in. It's not a stretch at all, IMO, to think > that Lupin *has* cast a spell on the children so that they will be > more easily taken (or so they remain in the Shack long enough for > him to transform). >snip< > We don't get to see into Snape's mind, so really, any > scenario works. We do see into Snape's mind a little: 'Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works,' hissed Snape. If he has been trying to fathom Lupin's mind since Lupin rejoined Hogwarts, with no success, and he is not a trusting man, this must have been very frustrating for him. As an occlumens, he must be aware how untrustworthy these occlumens are ;) He hears Lupin make a statement that would allow him to understand that Pettigrew is Wormtail is alive is Ron's rat, should he be prepared to accept this picture: 'Sirius is Padfoot. Peter is Wormtail. James was Prongs.' At this point he is listening quietly. I find it hard to accept that he doesn't, on some level, take this in. But he can't trust Lupin, so I figure the assumption he makes is that Lupin is confunding them. I also can't see that he couldn't understand what Sirius is telling him about the rat. Sirius is projecting this information at him as strongly as Harry projected his vision of Sirius trapped by Voldemort in the DoM, and Sirius's projection has the strength of 12 years obsession in Azkaban behind it...in addition to this, Sirius is accustomed, as is shown through his interactions with Lupin in this scene, to communicating with a legilimens without words. When Snape gets back to the tower, he is battling against opposition for his 'picture' or interpretation of events to win against Lupin's alternative picture, and from a good start he gradually loses ground. His interaction with Dumbledore suggests a parallel with their differences of interpretation of the prank... It's a fascinating scene, my feeling is that we have enough information to interpret it better than we are doing now...I'll have to go back and reread it. Eileen madly rushing to get to her appointment on time, thrusts PoA into the handbag next to OotP and HBP, thinks *must get a bigger handbag* From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Fri Oct 28 18:30:39 2005 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:30:39 -0000 Subject: Wondering about Malfoy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142269 --- Inge wrote: > Wasn't Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore? And wouldn't Harry have > figured that out by now? [snip] > That thought of Harry's seemed a bit slow to me - but then again - I could very well be the slow part here.... but in that case, what > WAS Voldemort making Draco do under the threat of killing him and > his parents? Lyra: I believe Harry is looking to the future and wondering what *else* Voldemort will get Malfoy to do by threatening his family. Blackmailers don't stop when you give them what they want; they just ask for more. Lyra From hg_skmg at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 00:05:14 2005 From: hg_skmg at yahoo.com (hg_skmg) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:05:14 -0000 Subject: Annoying interruptions... + Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142270 Inge: > Bloomsbury p 458 (After the Burial), > Slughorn: "But then...my dear boy... you're asking a great deal... > you're asking me, in fact to aid you in your attempt to destroy - " > *and* > Slughorn: "Harry, Harry, of course I do, but -" Because of Harry's interruption, we don't know.... If Slughorn didn't mean to end his sentence with 'Voldemort' - what else might he have said instead? And what's with the 'but'? hg: I took it to mean that Slughorn thought Harry might be a Horcrux. It might also at least a partial explanation as to why he's so reluctant to help Dumbledore before this point, and why he's offering the memory to Harry here, once he finds out Harry is the Chosen One. From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 00:45:40 2005 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:45:40 -0000 Subject: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142271 > 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 CTLovell at Verizon.net Sat Oct 29 07:36:18 2005 From: CTLovell at Verizon.net (abcwv2004) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:36:18 -0000 Subject: Relationship between Snape and the Malfoys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142272 I have been lurking on this list for close to a year now. This is only the second message I have posted. I have been wondering about the relationship between Snape and the Malfoys and what the other people in the group really think about it. >From the favoritism of Draco in school, to the fast movement Snape does at the end of GOF when Lucius' name is mentioned, to the UV - I am not sure how it all fits together. Some people have reported that Snape and the Malfoys are genuine friends. They claim that there is real trust and friendship between them and that this friendship may be a reason for the UV. However, would you ask a real friend to make an UV? I have been thinking about this. Honestly, if I went to a friend and asked that person for help with something really important and they said they would help me - then I would believe them. Why ask someone that you know well and trust to make an UV? Makes me think that Narcissa doesn't trust Snape that much after all. The way Snape responds to Narcissa in Chapter 2 - is that genuine affection or part of a long time act to get and stay on the Malfoys' good side? After all, they do sound like a wealthy and powerful couple. Do you think Snape really likes Lucius or simply uses him like any good spy would? He certainly doesn't show any affection or concern towards Lucius in the conversation at Spinner's End nor do we ever hear him speak positive about Lucius in canon. So, what do you think? Julia From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 10:11:00 2005 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:11:00 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > I think you've got a good point there. I suspect that part of the > secrecy protection of the wizard world says the wizards don't gather > together around muggles. Also, remember that there are only several > thousand wizards at best (exact number can't be determine, not even by > JKR). So, in reality, wizards are a much smaller minority that Chinese > in the UK. > > On the other hand, 'birds of a feather flock together'. I can envision > a magical family moving into a small obscure London neighborhood, and > mentioning to a friend that a house just went up for sale. So the > friend buys the house, and the next thing you know wizards dominate > the neighborhood. If they are preforming even minor protections spells > on their houses and gardens/yards, then perhaps the neighborhood takes > on a very /uninteresting/ feel, and eventually more muggle move out. > Next thing you know, you have an entire neighborhood dominated by > wizards. Soon, there is a wizard's tea shop, and maybe a wizard's > convenience store with mild muggle repelling charms on them. > > Of course, I admit, we don't see that in the books. All I am saying is > that I can envision it. > > Steve/bboyminn Sue: What an interesting thread! I have always seen wizards as a kind of ethnic group, more or less (the muggle-born wizards are, perhaps, descended from wizards who "married out"). And ethnic groups do tend to congregate in "ghettos", simply because it's convenient. Maybe they don't have Diagon Alleys all over the place - they'd just need to do their magical shopping there, after all, their food and such could come from local shops - but living near each other would make things easier. Think about how surprised the Wizengamot are, at Harry's trial in OOTP, to learn that Mrs Figg, a member of their community, if a Squib, is living in Little Whinging! And throughout the novels, there's the implication that most wizards don't have any idea how the muggle world works, whether it's electricity or clothes or sending mail. At the same time, wizard children out in the muggle world would have to go to school somewhere before Hogwarts - I think JKR mentioned they would just attend a normal primary school. They couldn't ALL live in isolation, out in the country, so urban wizard ghettos make sense. > From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 29 11:02:49 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:02:49 -0000 Subject: Evaporating soul pieces ( was Re: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: expectopatronnie: > > I don't understand it that way: IMO when you kill you're ripping > > your soul, and not merely damaging it. The ripped pieces > > evaporate into thin air, unless you encase them with a horcrux. I > > really don't think the actual making of the Horcrux increases the > > damage to your soul bboyminn: > To imply that the soul-pieces 'evaporate into thin air' implies that > they are gone relatively quickly. It's difficult to say how much > time it took Tom to create each individual Horcruxes (re: time > between murder and creation), but it seems clear that it took him a > significant amount time to create the original Diary Horcrux. > Also, we must to some extent blend real-life with fictional life. > If a person commits murder and that tears his soul, and that soul > piece is lost, then from a religious sense, can that murderer never > be redeemed? From a Christian perspective, even the worst of us is > capable of achieving salvation, but how is salvation possible if you > have lost part of your soul? Again, I know that's not proof, but it > is a least an indicator. > > So far in JKR's Wizard World, we have only one thing that /seems/ to > destroy the soul, and that is the Dementors. Of course, I can't > really say that with absolute certainty. In general though, the > soul is eternal. > While I know I can't offer definitive proof and am equally sure that > without proof I will never sway your opinion, I am convinced that > Killing tears the soul, but that torn damaged soul stays with the > murderer. I do, personally, believe that given substantial amounts > of time the soul is capable of repairing itself. While given > decades of time and a substantial change of heart, the soul may, to > some extent, heal itself, it will always be scarred and damaged by > the action of murder. Geoff: I lean towards Steve's position but go further to say that I do not buy into the hypothesis that a ripped piece of soul just evaporates into thin air. My view is that it is analogous to the situation in the real world with physical injuries. If a person has an accident and, say, breaks their back and becomes paralysed, their back is still there. It is not able to function properly but is still a part of them. If, on the other hand, as a result of an accident, they have a leg amputated, the leg is no longer part of them. The parallel with the wizarding world soul if that, if a soul is ripped because its "owner" has committed murder, then the soul piece is no longer functioning as an integral part of the person's soul but is still there. If the person then goes so far as to encase the soul piece in a Horcrux, it is the parallel of amputation. The soul piece is no longer part of them; no longer available to them. One problem is how we visualise the soul in the Horcrux situation. A soul in the real world is not a tangible thing; a surgeon cannot take an X-ray of a person and put a finger on the print and say "There is the soul". I find that this gives me problems in imagining soul pieces. I said weeks ago that I had a mental picture of a sheet of A4 paper being torn and torn again but, when some contributors try to rationalise the situation by using concrete fraction values, I don't entirely agree (and I speak as a retired Maths teacher). To me,I am now beginning to think that it seems a bit like releasing some of the air out of a balloon; The remaining air redistributes itself throughout the balloon but at a lower pressure. Like Steve, looking from a Christian perspective I believe that no one is beyond redemption until they put themselves there as a choice. Ah, say some of you, he's banging on about Draco again! Yes, possibly, but in real life, the opportunity of salvation remains there so I cannot see the soul evaporating away; I can see it hardening - look back at the dwarves at the end of C.S.Lewis' "Last Battle" which I have often cited. But God never gives up on us. We close doors ourselves sometimes by choice, sometimes by irreversible actions. From smilingator81 at aol.com Sat Oct 29 13:27:26 2005 From: smilingator81 at aol.com (smilingator4915) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:27:26 -0000 Subject: Time Turners (this is long!) In-Reply-To: <011801c5dc40$14d2e3b0$7778400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote > >smilingator wrote: > > This issue seems to pop up every few weeks... and it all depends > on how you view time travel in the Potterverse. If you believe that > > when Hermione and Harry traveled back in time and CHANGED the events that > > happened (i.e., saved Buckbeak from death after he had already died, > > rescued Sirius after he had already been "kissed"), then you would > > definitely find it "absurd" that you can go back in time to fix some > > things but not everything that goes wrong. > > However, I believe that JKR provided more than enough evidence that > > when Harry and Hermione used the time turners, they did not "change" > > anything. > > JKR did an outstaning job of fooling me the first time with the events > > and then throwing in the time travelling twist and carefully placing > > clues that showed that the events NEVER changed; we just viewed them > > from two different perspectives. > > So, why can't Harry just time turn and save Dumbledore and Sirius > > (besides the fact that it seems the time turners were destroyed)? > > Because you can't change what happened in the past. > > > Magpie: > > Warning--twisty time-talk ahead... > > I assume this keeps coming up because what you described doesn't make any > difference to the question of why Harry didn't use the Time Turner to save > Sirius in OotP. smilingator: Okay, so let's say Harry had used the Time Turners in OOTP... Sirius still would have died. My point in my previous post was that you can CHOOSE to travel back in time if you want, you are not going to change what happened in the past. At least, that's how JKR wanted things to operate in her story. Other time travelling theories say you can change the past, but as I said in my previous post, JKR just put too much effort into showing that two Harry and Hermiones were present that evening. So, here's how I look at trying to go into the past to stop something from happening. Let's say you go to school in the morning and when you come home, your dog is gone. So you use a time turner to be able to stop the dog from running away. It is MY belief that something will happen to prevent TTYou! from being able to stop Fido from leaving. Maybe you fall asleep on the couch and he rushes out the door. Maybe some thieves try to break in to your home and your brave dog chases them away. Maybe your dog turns psycho on you and starts biting you and you call animal control to have him taken away. The fact that Fido was gone when non-time travelling you got home from school will not change, though TTYou! may know why the dog left. Now, a lot of people argue that takes away from free will; I don't think that it does. You still have a choice and make choices in the situation, it's just that your choices may end up causing the very thing that you wanted to prevent. So even if Harry had time travelled to save Sirius, something would have happened to stop him from being able to do so. magpie: >From her [JKR] god's eye perspective, she > decided to show us the already changed future. She could just as easily > have shown us Buckbeak dying, then have Harry go back in time and show us > him saving Buckbeak, and just have everyone remember Harry as always having > saved Buckbeak because the past was changed. smilingator: Had JKR "just" shown Buckbeak dying and then Harry going back and saving him, then that would mean that past events COULD be changed, and I, too, would be wondering why in the world no one went back to warn Harry's parents about Voldie's impeding attack. But as it is, JKR chose not to (thank goodness) show the audience the event happening one way and then go back and change everything the second time we saw it. Fandom would have been in an uproar! > So why can't they do that in in OotP? They can't just not do it > because...they didn't do it. The fact that we don't see a Future!Harry > saving Sirius shows us Harry never used the Time Turner, not that he > couldn't--I mean, what would have happened if, moments after the battle, > Harry had grabbed a Time Turner and gone back in time? I can see no reason > why it wouldn't work. smilingator: Well, I hope my earlier explanation showed you why Harry grabbing a Time turner would not have worked in the Potterverse. Past events just don't change, we just see them from two different perspectives. So, the second time we witnessed the events, Sirius still would have died, we just would have looked at it through the eyes of TTHarry instead. Something would have stopped TTHarry from being to help Sirius. Buckbeak never died in PoA, that can't be changed. Sirius did die in OOTP, that can't be changed. magpie: To say that the past can't be changed, and wasn't > changed in PoA, is to deny Harry and Hermione's decision and action of using > the Time Turner and saving Buckbeak by saying you can't use the Time Turner > unless you are going to use the Time Turner. But when do you go from being > a person who can't use the Time Turner to someone who is going to use it to > someone who has used it and therefore can use it? The logic gets circular. smilingator: Not 100% sure what you meant by all this... but to tackle the first part, saying the past can't be changed is not denying Harry and Hermione anything at all. They had a choice in that moment when Dumbledore was trying to persuade them to time travel. I would love to go into a "what if they hadn't used the time turner ramble" here, but the fact is that they did CHOOSE to use it and when they time travelled, they made other decisions that impacted events; but still, nothing about that evening was changed. magpie: > For instance, from 10-11, let's say, Hermione takes Arithmancy. Then she > uses the Time Turner to take Divinations. From Harry and Ron's pov, > Hermione "always" took Divinations, because she experienced the hour with > them. If Divinations and Arithmancy were in the same room we would see two > Hermiones in the class, just as there were two Harrys and Hermiones in PoA. > But from Hermione's perspective, she took Arithmancy *and then* she took > Divination. She remembers two hours where everyone else remembers one. She > remembers an hour when she took Arithmancy and had *not yet* taken > Divination. When Hermione misses a lesson it's because she forgot to turn > her clock back, not because she couldn't turn her clock back because she > wasn't in the lesson--that's backwards. smilingator: Your explanation of how Hermione got through her lessons and how everyone else viewed it is dead on. So when she missed that one lesson, that just goes to prove my point of not being able to change anything in the past. She missed it... can't make it up. And even if she had tried to make it up, something would have happened to prevent her from making it to that class. She wasn't there the "first time", so she wouldn't be there the "second time" either. magpie: > The reason Harry doesn't save Sirius in OotP with the use of the Time Turner > is, I think, far more mundane: the Time Turners are all destroyed in the > battle (symbolically, they can no longer go backwards, only forwards). And > I think that was put in partially to answer this question, because there > really is no other reason they can't use the things. Except to say that > they can't do it because the author didn't write the scene that way, which > isn't something the characters can be aware of themselves. smilingator: I agree with you that the answer to the question is that the time turners were "conveniently" ALL gathered in one area and destroyed. And you are right, there would be no other reason the characters couldn't use the things. And if they made the decision to use them, they still wouldn't have been able to change anything because what has already happened can't change. I just think JKR thought ahead and wanted to avoid that whole sticky argument, which, haha... still comes up at least once a month on here. smilingator... 20 days til GoF From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 29 13:38:20 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:38:20 -0000 Subject: Relationship between Snape and the Malfoys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142276 Julia wrote: > > The way Snape responds to Narcissa in Chapter 2 - is that genuine > affection or part of a long time act to get and stay on the Malfoys' > good side? After all, they do sound like a wealthy and powerful > couple. Do you think Snape really likes Lucius or simply uses him > like any good spy would? He certainly doesn't show any affection or > concern towards Lucius in the conversation at Spinner's End nor do > we ever hear him speak positive about Lucius in canon. > > So, what do you think? Potincat: Until HBP I didn't think Snape cared for the Malfoys at all. Even with the "lapdog" comment by Sirius, I thought any relationship was a ruse on Snape's part. But Spinner's End seems to indicate there was/is a friendship. Of course, if Snape has been acting all these years, Narcissa could just think there is a friendship. He seems to care about Draco, particularly in HBP, but that could also be the UV. Although I think Snape was watching over Draco as much as he was Harry for the past 6 years. If Snape is DDM!Snape, it doesn't seem to me that he could genuinely consider Malfoy a friend--Malfoy has gone after DD more than once. On the other hand ACID POPS, or a milder version of it, could explain a friendship with Narcissa. And Narcissa, speaking in front of Bella, could just be saying Snape's friendship was with Lucius. BTW, one of the "bluid-red" ballads has to do with a man whose lover is getting married. The man comes to the wedding to see the bride one last time, drinks bluid-red wine with the groom--then rides off with the bride! So now we know what ACID POPS taste like. Potioncat From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 29 14:39:20 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:39:20 -0000 Subject: Eeevil!Snape was Snape in Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: = > Harry is pretty darn sure that Snape is Eeeevvvillll too. We are all > pretty sure about out interpretation of the greasy git. That's part of > reason I haven't been posting anything lately. I just don't have that > much to say anymore. The story keeps narrowing and all the fun stuff I > like to argue about (Snape being a good/bad teacher, the lack of merits > to Ginny W., Dumbledore doing right by Harry) just don't matter > anymore. 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. If Snape is evil then it really doesn't matter why he hates Harry so much, why Dumbledore thought his remorse was genuine, why he joined the DE's in the first place. Eeevil!Snape could still be redeemed of course, but how and why he went wrong isn't important for that. Harry doesn't need to know, because evil in these kinds of stories isn't individual. It takes advantage of individual weaknesses but it's like a virus -- once it gets through your defenses, it shuts down what you were and makes you into a copy of itself. But if Snape isn't a murderer, then he's something much more interesting -- an anti-hero whose personal behavior is somewhere between reprehensible and atrocious, depending on how sentimental you are about the kiddies, but who has done more than any other adult with the exception of Dumbledore to stand between those children and a destroyer who would doom them to a world of slavery, torture and premature death, not so that he can be a hero, but so that they can grow up and can take on Voldemort themselves. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 29 14:54:09 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:54:09 -0000 Subject: Judging a book by its cover In-Reply-To: <006c01c5dbe4$826f5d10$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142278 (There, finally changed it's to its so I don't have to cringe looking at my own botched title) > Sherry now: > And just what part of Snape does the book show Harry? Not > something positive. in spite of the brilliance of the potion > instructions, the book teaches Harry several horrible dark > curses. is this the glorious real Snape? All through the book, > HBP that is, we're led to feel distrustful of the effect that book > has on Harry. But then we find out it was Snape's book > and that makes it ok? It seems to me that the identity of the > owner of the book should confirm Harry's suspicions of Snape > rather than allaying them. the Snape who is the Half Blood Prince > is not a very nice fellow and not one Harry should trust, forgive > or emulate. Jen: I made a few internal leaps of logic in my post yesterday, hoping to write a short one (for once!), but will expand on those thought a bit. My view of the potion book is different from yours because I believe its significance is mainly metaphorical. Dumbledore spent a significant amount of time in HBP showing Harry scenes from other people's lives, flawed lives, people who didn't think or act as Dumbledore or Harry would in the same situation. Throughout the Pensieve memories, Dumbledore encourages Harry's natural reactions to the scenes ("Could you possibly be feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?") and reminding him there's often more than meets the eye ("...do not judge her too harshly Harry. She was greatly weakened by long suffering and she never had your mother's courage.") In a nutshell, I believe Dumbeldore's lessons were two- fold: 1) showing Harry where Voldemort is weak and therefore, will make mistakes leading to his own destruction; 2) Equally important to Dumbledore, he was teaching Harry how to view others through the eyes of compassion. I think the 'second chances' thing with Dumbledore is more than blind faith. He believes that trusting in other's goodness is not only the right thing to do, but will actually bring out those good qualitites inside of them. He truly did believe Riddle, given a second chance at Hogwarts and being exposed to love magic, would turn from the path he was on; he believed and told Draco three times he was not a killer and his affirmation helped Draco make the right choice; he believed Slughorn would put aside his terror and strong desire for a comfortable life and act bravely by giving Harry the memory. Given all that, I believe Dumbledore's trust of Snape is partially his belief in the person he knew as a student at Hogwarts. That in a sense, when Snape turned from Voldemort and the DE's, he 'returned' to his former state. An imperfect person, with a nasty streak and love of the dark arts, but also someone with an intelligent and creative mind, a dry sense of humour, and somewho who was literally an 'open book' for others to see. Unlike Riddle, Snape did not hide his motives or interests or his true nature behind a charming facade. He allowed others to see his nastiness, his obsession with the Maruaders, his interest in dark arts and etc. I think the potion book is merely a vehicle for Harry to see Snape with the same eyes of compassion Dumbledore saw him. Harry cannot see any good in adult Snape, and I don't blame him at all for that, especially when he found out about the eavesdropper thing. Snape has done nothing to encourage Harry to see him as a good person and is directly connected to his parent's death. But I'm also finding it very hard to accept JKR intends to send the message that hatred, even of enemies, is ever the right choice to make. Jen From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 29 15:12:41 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:12:41 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142279 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eileen_nicholson" wrote: > He hears Lupin make a statement that would allow him to understand > that Pettigrew is Wormtail is alive is Ron's rat, should he be > prepared to accept this picture: > > 'Sirius is Padfoot. Peter is Wormtail. James was Prongs.' Pippin: But Snape hadn't arrived yet when Sirius said that the rat was Peter Pettigrew. He doesn't know that Lupin is talking about Ron's rat. All Snape knows is that Sirius is trying to get him to look at the rat, which means taking his eyes off Sirius, who is not bound, is thought to be armed with a knife, and could seize one of the children as a hostage. It doesn't matter if Sirius tried at this point to project the truth by legilimency -- Snape would only believe he was using occlumency and lying. >From what he says, Snape never makes the connection that the rat *is* Pettigrew. He has heard that three of the Marauders were animagi, but he has no way of knowing whether that's even true. He can't fathom Lupin's mind, and if Sirius was good enough at Occlumency to maintain himself as a spy in the face of Dumbledore's suspicions, then he would be good enough to fool Snape too. Just imagine if Snape was trying to convince Harry that Dumbledore was a bumblebee animagus, and the plan was for him to fall off the tower, land safely and transfigure himself into a corpse, only it went wrong because Dumbledore was too severely injured by the poison to save himself. Not only is it wildly farfetched, it leaves Harry confronting the horrible thought that he himself was the agent of Dumbledore's doom. Snape might well feel the same if he thought that James had switched secretkeepers because of Snape's suspicions of Sirius. Pippin From JLen1777 at aol.com Sat Oct 29 08:53:47 2005 From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:53:47 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Relationship between Snape and the Malfoys Message-ID: <1f8.1597f4b2.3094929b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142280 Julia: "Some people have reported that Snape and the Malfoys are genuine friends. They claim that there is real trust and friendship between them and that this friendship may be a reason for the UV. However, would you ask a real friend to make an UV? I have been thinking about this. Honestly, if I went to a friend and asked that person for help with something really important and they said they would help me - then I would believe them. Why ask someone that you know well and trust to make an UV? Makes me think that Narcissa doesn't trust Snape that much after all. "The way Snape responds to Narcissa in Chapter 2 - is that genuine affection or part of a long time act to get and stay on the Malfoys' good side? After all, they do sound like a wealthy and powerful couple. Do you think Snape really likes Lucius or simply uses him like any good spy would? He certainly doesn't show any affection or concern towards Lucius in the conversation at Spinner's End nor do we ever hear him speak positive about Lucius in canon. "So, what do you think?" JLen1777: I have just joined the site, and have found all of the conversations to be quite interesting so far. This particular question is intriguing, and one I have wondered about myself. I personally, do not think it shows a lack of trust in Snape on Narcissa's part, simply her total devotion to her son, and her desperation in saving him. She shows that earlier in the chapter with Bella: "Cissy, your own sister, you wouldn't ---" "The is nothing I wouldn't do anymore!" (*Am.Version P 21) However, I do not think she believes Snape is a great chum either, just admirable in her eyes because she thinks Voldemort trusts him and he is Draco's favorite teacher. I do however think Snape must have some unknown respect, or admiration for Narcissa: "Narcissa!" said the man, opening the door a little wider, so that the light fell upon her and her sister too. "What a pleasant surprise!" (Am. Version P.22) Now this could be fake charm, or may lend to an argument that it was not a surprise at all, that Snape may have been expecting Narcissa (which could lend itself to an argument that Snape knew he would have to make the UV and kill DD), but whatever it is, it seemed out of character for Snape to me. I have never seen him seem 'happy,' and this truly seemed like Snape was pleased that Naracissa was there to see him. I have seen him be catty to Harry, Hermione, Bellatrix, any number of people; respectful toward Dumbledore; even shown favoritism to Draco; but never truly pleased to see anyone. For that reason, I think that he has some respect for Narcissa that we are not yet privy to. I do not think his respect really lies with Lucius. Not sure this exactly answers anything you asked, but it is an interesting question, and one I would enjoy analyzing further. Jaimee [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ornawn at 013.net Sat Oct 29 10:33:34 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:33:34 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142281 >Hickengruendler wrote: >No. He couldn't see everybody, who was in the Shack on the map, >because the shack wasn't on Hogwarts grounds. He only saw Lupin >entering the secret passage under the Whoomping Willow and followed >him, because he thought he met Sirius. Orna: Right, my mistake. That leaves Snape IMO an interesting Anigmatus, or more of that, human enough, to be capable of perhaps real developments further on (not just revealing of his "true" motives). Which brings me to another : >Hickengruendler wrote: >That does not sound as if the Snape in her >mind had completely evil motivations that night. (I mean, more evil >than being exited that someone's soul gets sucked out, which really >is pretty bad enough). And it also does not seem, as if the Snape in >her mind is irredemably bad. > > Carol : > Not to mention that Snape knew very well that Lupin was at large in > werewolf form. Orna: That shows again to me, that Snape does get carried away with his revenge(?) feelings, because he might have been endangering himself, by following (again) Lupin to the shack. Which makes him more human than evil, IMO. I even had a thought, that beside or even beneath his longing for revenge, there might be a more desperate feeling for being appreciated in ...Dumbeldore's eyes. Because he says "I've told the headmaster again and again that you've been helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof." That's also why I think, he wanted to bring them to the castle. From remuslupin73 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 12:29:47 2005 From: remuslupin73 at hotmail.com (ronnie) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:29:47 -0000 Subject: Evaporating soul pieces ( was Re: Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3?? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142282 > bboyminn wrote: > > To imply that the soul-pieces 'evaporate into thin air' implies that > > they are gone relatively quickly. It's difficult to say how much > > time it took Tom to create each individual Horcruxes (re: time > > between murder and creation), but it seems clear that it took him a > > significant amount time to create the original Diary Horcrux. expectopatronnie: You have a point there. Maybe the 'evaporate into thin air' was not a good phrase. However, what I do mean to say is that the torn soul piece will never be healed. > bboyminn wrote: > Also, we must to some extent blend real-life with fictional life. > If a person commits murder and that tears his soul, and that soul > piece is lost, then from a religious sense, can that murderer > never be redeemed? > From a Christian perspective, even the worst of us is > capable of achieving salvation, but how is salvation possible if > you have lost part of your soul? Again, I know that's not proof, > but it is a least an indicator. Expectopatronnie: Well,for lack of evidence on both sides, let us go into our philosophical assumptions: being Jewish, I don't take the so- called "real-life" christian perspective. Not going into the question of JK's attitude towards Chrisian morality, I *don't* believe in a murderer being fully redeemed. Being a psychologist, I believe that there is no full recovery (or healing) from trauma, even if you have no responsibility to the trauma your soul suffered (e.g. Harry, Lupin, Snape - whom I suspect has AKed well before the tower scene). Note - that does not mean that the person is Doomed.It simply means to me that every murderer's soul is damaged beyond repair. So when you say: > > So far in JKR's Wizard World, we have only one thing that /seems/ to > > destroy the soul, and that is the Dementors. Of course, I can't > > really say that with absolute certainty. In general though, the > > soul is eternal. (expectopatronnie again): I totally agree with you. Only a demenor's kiss will destroy your soul, but any AK will damage your soul irreversibaly. > bboyminn: > I do, personally, believe that given substantial amounts > of time the soul is capable of repairing itself. > While given decades of time and a substantial > change of heart, the soul may, > to some extent, heal itself, it will always be scarred and damaged > by the action of murder. To this I agree. But IMO from Rowling's POV, the tearing of the soul is irreversable. The person learns to cope without this certain piece. > Geoff wrote: > My view is that it is analogous to the situation in the real world > with physical injuries. If a person has an accident and, say, > breaks their back and becomes paralysed, > their back is still there. It is not able to function properly > but is still a part of them. expectopatronnie: Lending your analogy, I'd say that what happens to a soul after a killing is sort of like brain damage. The non-damaged parts of the brain may learn to cope and make-up for the lost functions. However, the damaged tissues will never function again. expectopatronnie, philosophizing at noon. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 15:58:12 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:58:12 -0000 Subject: Why can't Harry? WAS Re: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142283 > Beatrice > > 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). > 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. > I believe that that horcrux is Harry. > Voldemort cannot LIVE while Harry survives. Thus he > cannot be killed unless Harry dies. Valky: A very concise and logical point I think Beatrice. I wonder if you'll mind ever so much taking a wander with me a bit further down the lane to try to come up with something as straightforward in canon as this to explain why Harry cannot live while Voldemort survives. To clarify where my question is coming from, although I am uncertain of the Horcrux!Harry theory, I must admit it comes of itself (sometimes out of nowhere ) even when I am not searching for horcruxes, or trying to come up with a final battle theory. Yes, I mean Horcrux Harry comes up in the most unlikely places, like hypothesising Dudleys worst memory for example, I have found it there quite by accident. The one thing I have not resolved to the point, I think, is why Harry cannot live while Voldemort survives. Here are some of the angles that sort of work for me, but they don't simplify enough to ease my mind about it: 1. Voldemort survives as long as Horcrux Harry lives, hence Harry cannot live because he remains the marked man forever hunted by Voldemort. 2. The Horcrux is capable of possessing Harry the moment his blood protection ceases, hence he was doomed from the start to lose his life and his body to Voldie at 17, unless he can destroy Voldemort before then (or during which is probably more likely). I lean to the second one because I like that it becomes a race against time, that would be just my kind of tachycardiac drama . I know many would lean to the first because of it's poetry, and I appreciate that point of view, but then I wonder if those that would haven't experienced the racing heart-rate that I have with the climactic scenes of *every* book of the series to date, to be honest I think that JKR is capable of a final book of the series to put mine over 200/min resting (don't hate me for my optimism ;D ). But then, I don't like either of them at all, for a heap of reasons, such as I don't like the second one because it doesn't make sense that one piece of Voldie can possess Harry and the other cannot, and I don't like the first one because, well, I just don't like that it doesn't activate the adrenal gland at all. OKay over to you Beatrice, what can you come up with? :D Valky From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 29 16:05:29 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:05:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Relationship between Snape and the Malfoys References: Message-ID: <00cd01c5dca2$9578c5e0$d66c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 142284 abcwv2004: > Some people have reported that Snape and the Malfoys are genuine > friends. They claim that there is real trust and friendship between > them and that this friendship may be a reason for the UV. However, > would you ask a real friend to make an UV? I have been thinking > about this. Honestly, if I went to a friend and asked that person for > help with something really important and they said they would > help me - then I would believe them. Why ask someone that you know > well and trust to make an UV? Makes me think that Narcissa doesn't > trust Snape that much after all. Magpie: I've always thought the feelings between them were genuine--or at least the relationship between Snape and Draco. They really do get along. We just don't know very much about Snape's relationship with the elder Malfoys, except to know that others have always perceived a positive relationship between them. I suspect it's complicated. Snape potentially really was a fan of Lucius' back in the day, and post-Godric's Hollow both of them were eager to disavow Voldemort. But how they feel about each other deep down is just really impossible to say without knowing them better. I don't even know how they interact. Draco, in CoS, sounds as if he isn't aware of their past relationship (when he offers to put in a good word for him with Lucius) so he may think that all positive thoughts Lucius has for Snape come sort of through him. With Voldemort back, I don't think the kind of trust you're describing is possible for anyone on that side. They all seem to be attached to people they may really like but can't trust--Draco doesn't trust Snape, Snape doesn't trust Draco, Bella doesn't trust Voldemort or Snape, Narcissa doesn't trust Snape. They all quite possibly care about each other, but can't trust each other or know what the other will do (Narcissa even says this--there's nothing I wouldn't do). Most of them are cornered animals. Narcissa, no matter how she feels about Snape, has good reason to think she'd need something to insure Snape does what he's saying he's going to do. With Voldemort around there's just too many reasons he'd have to back out. abcwv2004: > The way Snape responds to Narcissa in Chapter 2 - is that genuine > affection or part of a long time act to get and stay on the Malfoys' > good side? After all, they do sound like a wealthy and powerful > couple. Do you think Snape really likes Lucius or simply uses him > like any good spy would? He certainly doesn't show any affection or > concern towards Lucius in the conversation at Spinner's End nor do > we ever hear him speak positive about Lucius in canon. Magpie: I don't think Snape is so much a good actor as someone who can keep his feelings to himself. We've heard Lucius speaks highly of Snape but we've never heard Snape say a peep about Lucius that I recall. We do see him seeming to have a positive relationship to his son, and we have Sirius' and Narcissa's word that Snape at least in the past seemed to like him a lot. I'm less likely to think of Snape as putting on an act around the Malfoys to just hiding whatever he's really feeling whenever he can. Draco doesn't say much about his feelings about his father's predicament in HBP either, but they're under the surface. When Snape says, "I know your father's imprisonment has upset you..." that's when he storms out. I think Snape is being careful to keep any personal feelings he feels for anyone or anything hidden in Spinner's End. Edging into the realm of speculation, I can imagine Snape seeing Lucius as beyond his help. He's a grown man and he can take care of himself--he's in Azkaban, and it's repeated more than once that this is a *good* place to be right now. He's protected without Dementors. But I can see Snape having a number of reasons for focusing more on Draco, some of which have to do with his past with Lucius. So yeah, I'd say that HBP showed that personal affection is a big factor in the actions of the characters we know who are on the other side, with Snape's feelings the most hidden from us. For instance, I'd like to know the exact reason(s) Snape shows fear one time that I remember in canon--when Draco is dragged into Slughorn's party. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 29 15:40:01 2005 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:40:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turners (this is long!) References: Message-ID: <009501c5dc9f$07518160$d66c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 142285 > smilingator: > Well, I hope my earlier explanation showed you why Harry grabbing a > Time turner would not have worked in the Potterverse. Past events just > don't change, we just see them from two different perspectives. So, > the second time we witnessed the events, Sirius still would have died, > we just would have looked at it through the eyes of TTHarry instead. > Something would have stopped TTHarry from being to help Sirius. > Buckbeak never died in PoA, that can't be changed. Sirius did die in > OOTP, that can't be changed. Magpie: Right, but it's because the *narrative* can't change according to the rules of the Potterverse. But a person going back in time is still effecting what they would consider the past. For instance, in the example you gave about the dog, my dog might still wind up lost whether or not I go back in the past, but there is still would be a different sequence of events if I go back in time or if I don't. Like, in your example of the dog going crazy and biting me when I tried to bring him home. If I don't go back in the past, that doesn't happen. The dog might stay lost both times, but anything Future!Me does obviously wouldn't happen if I don't go back in time. But I would have no memory or a sequence of events without Future!Me's actions. > smilingator: > Not 100% sure what you meant by all this... but to tackle the first > part, saying the past can't be changed is not denying Harry and > Hermione anything at all. They had a choice in that moment when > Dumbledore was trying to persuade them to time travel. I would love to > go into a "what if they hadn't used the time turner ramble" here, but > the fact is that they did CHOOSE to use it and when they time > travelled, they made other decisions that impacted events; but still, > nothing about that evening was changed. Magpie: Well, now I understand more what you mean. You aren't saying that a person can't choose to use the Time Turner unless we've seen the results of their future selves' actions in the text, so that makes sense. In the narrative we're always seeing the time stream which will become permenant so even if the characters do go back in time, we know whatever their double selves do will match up to the narrative that we are seeing now. That's how the author chose to write it. As opposed to in, say, "Back to the Future," where we see Marty McFly's life and hear about the life of his parents without the use of a time machine: they didn't meet Marty until he was born. Once Marty uses the time machine and does something to change the way events are going. When he returns to the present it's a different present. No one else in that present remembers the original universe. They, like the characters in HP, would remember the past as always including a meeting with Marty. The original timeline no longer exists for them, though we, the audience, remember it. The future selves are always affecting the past, but in HP we know that if any Time Travel is going to happen, then it will have "already happened" in the narrative. We will not know any possible alternate universes. -m From eileennicholson at aol.com Sat Oct 29 17:08:30 2005 From: eileennicholson at aol.com (eileen_nicholson) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:08:30 -0000 Subject: Why can't Harry? WAS Re: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142286 Valky wrote: >snip< > The one thing I have not resolved to the point, I think, is why Harry > cannot live while Voldemort survives. > > Here are some of the angles that sort of work for me, but they don't > simplify enough to ease my mind about it: > > 1. Voldemort survives as long as Horcrux Harry lives, hence Harry > cannot live because he remains the marked man forever hunted by Voldemort.< Eileen: I hope you don't mind me butting in here... I am beginning to imagine that 'either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives' simply means that by the time the prophecy comes into effect it is war to the knife between Harry and Voldemort, and neither can 'live and let live' while the other survives, tying in with Dumbledore's words towards the end of the 'Horcruxes' chapter in HBP. Not a bangy solution, so I am still hoping it doesn't turn out that way. The only other possibilities I have come up with so far are this one, ...that the two of them only have one soul between them and its a question of who gets to keep it - this is so disgustingly ewwww that I don't know why I posted it, but working out how such a situation might have arisen could be a challenge for an insomniac on hallowe'en ;) ...and the supposition that during the turbulent events at Godric's Hollow, which would in this case have to involve a switch, Harry wasn't the only one who ended up with something extra, Voldemort got a part of Harry too, that he needs to get back in order to live. And this would have to be Harry's soul. And it would have to be the whole soul because Harry at 18 months old wouldn't be capable of committing murder to split it. I'm not very good at theorising, I don't know whether its worthwhile for anyone to aim their canon at this one! Valky again: > 2. The Horcrux is capable of possessing Harry the moment his blood > protection ceases, hence he was doomed from the start to lose his life > and his body to Voldie at 17, unless he can destroy Voldemort before > then (or during which is probably more likely). > Eileen: If no. 2 suggests a final showdown on or before Harry's birthday on 31st July, then the problem as I see it is that the prophecy is fulfilled towards the end of 1997; we know this, I think, because it is towards the end of row 97 in the DoM, and Harry's birthday is a bit too early to fulfill the criteria Eileen From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 17:12:10 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:12:10 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142287 >Betsy Hp: >Why does Snape need a dementor? If he's ESE or bent on revenge or >especially trying to hide Peter's true role in the Potters' death, >why not just kill Sirius himself? He could kill Sirius, knock out >Harry and then hunt down and kill Lupin, if he so desires. >Actually, I'm kind of wondering why Snape felt he had to wait for >Sirius to give him a reason back in the Shack, if he's evil and all. a_svirn: Why, to avoid Azkaban, of course. If a wizard with a DE record used an Unforgivable, I really don't think he would have been able to avoid punishment even with Dumbledore on his side. Also there is a little matter of inquiry. Snape clearly does not want anyone to pry in this too closely. >Betsy Hp: >Bellatrix (and those who came to Azkaban with her) would have >realized there was a *double-crosser*. I don't think it's clear >that they knew exactly who the double-crosser was. Maybe the Death >Eaters knew there was a spy but didn't know the spy's identity. a_svirn: Actually, I think you are quite right. I too think that they meant "someone else". Pettigrew does not fit the description, because he never "double-crossed" them. He only double-crossed the Order and the Potters. There is another person who qualifies as double "double-crosser" though. Sirius never spotted it because he was too obsessed with Peter and also because his information was necessarily limited. >Betsy Hp: >One man's "comfortable pose" is another man's "confunded audience". > Reading through the scene again (after the door creak and >before Snape's reveal) it seems plausible (IMO) that Snape really >did think the children were confunded. a_svirn: maybe in a sense "confound 'em" >Betsy Hp: >Remember, Snape is sure (and Lupin admits) that Lupin has >completely >fooled *Dumbledore*. Snape is wary enough of Lupin to actually back >out of a room Lupin is in. It's not a stretch at all, IMO, to think >that Lupin *has* cast a spell on the children so that they will be >more easily taken (or so they remain in the Shack long enough for >him to transform). a_svirn: You mean Snape thought that all those reminiscences were nothing else but a way to while away the time before Lupin's transformation? So that he could have the kids for a snack? Now, one certainly cannot fathom the mind of a werewolf, but surely it's a bit too much? Why not simply stun and bind them? >Betsy Hp: >Or did Snape change his mind when Sirius expressed such an >eagerness >to get to the castle? The same Sirius who managed to blow up a >street before? Perhaps Snape thinks Sirius has something up his >sleeve. a_svirn: Ah, yes the infamous tricks that Lord Voldemort allegedly taught him. This kind of bogus might have worked on Fudge, no doubt, but Snape undoubtedly knew better, regardless of his loyalties. >Betsy Hp: >We don't get to see into Snape's mind, so really, any >scenario works. But the fact that he feels he needs a *reason* to >kill Sirius, the fact that he wants to turn the criminals over to >the authorities (and the dementors, creepy as they are, are the >authorities) does suggest a certain obedience to the law. At least, >IMO. a_svirn: Well, as a man who had nearly escaped Azkaban some years previously he would certainly have been wary of the Law. Much as he wanted to kill Sirius, in front of the three or four (if we count Lupin) witnesses he would have needed a "reason" very badly. As for authorities, yes Sirius has been sentenced to the kiss, so he could feed him to a Dementor without any reprisal. From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sat Oct 29 16:24:53 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:24:53 -0000 Subject: Time Turners In-Reply-To: <011801c5dc40$14d2e3b0$7778400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142288 Smilingator wrote (also hugely snipped): > I agree with you that the answer to the question is that the time > turners were "conveniently" ALL gathered in one area and destroyed. > And you are right, there would be no other reason the characters > couldn't use the things. And if they made the decision to use them, > they still wouldn't have been able to change anything because what > has already happened can't change. I just think JKR thought ahead > and wanted to avoid that whole sticky argument, which, haha... > still comes up at least once a month on here Lucianam: Yep, but even with Time Travel being sticky (as smilingator put it) and all Time Turners being gone, it's very likely JKR will pull more TTs in B7. Judging from PoA then_ specially the bit about Harry being able to produce a Patronus because his self-from-the-future had done it before _ the Time Travel (or Time Travels) which seem likely to happen in Book 7 will probably follow the lines of necessity, fatality and overall we-have-to-go-back-in-the-past-because-we-have- already-time-travelled! sense, rather than simply a wish to bring loved ones back form the dead. Thanks for a enlightening (but disheartening _ no bring Sirius from Veil then) discussion. Only if TT is really happening in B7 how are the kids (assuming the Trio are travelling) doing it? In PoA they had Dumbledore to tell them they should do it, what they were supposed to do once they were in the past, when in time they were supposed to arrive... I suspect Ron's new watch could have something to do with it, maybe it's Dumbledore's same watch from PS/SS first chapter? It could be that watch, if it's some kind of time-travelling device, and maybe Dumbledore has already set it (like an alarm clock). The descriptions are almost identical except for the hands and the images around the edges. I'm just guessing wildly (obviously) but wouldn't it be like Dumbledore to have set he watch to the right time and place the kids are supposed to travel (supposing it can place-travel too!) and leave it after he was gone. So that'd explain the differences, it's the same watch only in PS it's not set to TT and in HBP it is. Lucianam (hmm, too much Coke maybe but still fun) From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sat Oct 29 17:57:38 2005 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:57:38 -0000 Subject: TTDumbledore? (Was Re: Time Turners) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: > Lucianam: > > Yep, but even with Time Travel being sticky (as smilingator put it) > and all Time Turners being gone, it's very likely JKR will pull more > TTs in B7. BIG SNIP Inge now: Sorry to cut your post so short. Could the Dumbledore we see in the Tower in fact be a TTDumbledore who 'left' Harry and the 'real' Dumbledore somewhere between the Cave and the arriving at the Tower? The reason that makes me ask is Dumbledore's cryptic reply to Draco. Bloomsbury p 551 (The Lightning-Struck Tower): "That's right", said Malfoy. "But she [Rosmerta] said you were just going for a dring, you'd be back..." "Well, I certainly did have a drink ... and I came back ... after a fashion," mumbled Dumbledore. Not sure where Im going with this .... just another silly thought. But if TTDumbledore in fact died.... where would the 'other' Dumbledore be now? Did he fake his own death - or didn't he? Was he trying to tell Harry that he himself was in fact going into hiding, when he told Draco "...we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine." Did he try to give Harry a clue here that he himself (Dumbledore) would go into hiding? From eileennicholson at aol.com Sat Oct 29 18:39:30 2005 From: eileennicholson at aol.com (eileen_nicholson) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:39:30 -0000 Subject: Speculating on Voldemort's conscience Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142290 Just how far are Harry and Voldemort combined? Do portions of Harry 'know' that they are not Voldemort, do portions of Voldemort 'know' that they are not Harry? Voldemort seems fairly one-dimensional now - did he ever have a conscience and if so, has he discarded it along the way? Did he think it unnecessary and inconvenient, and popped it into a horcrux? Did he lose it to Harry at Godric's Hollow? Just supposing Voldemort got all his split horcrux pieces back - either they all return to him one at a time as the horcruxes are destroyed, say, or they are attracted to Harry's torn horcrux soul portion, and Harry collects them all up, maybe along with that conscience, and gives them back to Voldemort, or - insert preferred alternative theory here : ) Could Harry's pure heart work on Voldemort's conscience? Is the power of Harry's pure heart stronger than Voldemort's will, now that Voldemort has divided his soul into so many parts? Could Harry possess Voldemort, giving him access to his conscience again? If Voldemort gets his conscience back, purified through a Harry who knows the details of and has condemned each one of Voldemort's horcrux murders, will he perhaps condemn himself and accept his own death as the price he must pay? Just speculating Eileen who joined this list on the crest of a wave of righteous indignation at JKR for shoving Sirius Black through the veil without redemption, when his character was such a promising candidate for it, and is consequently trigger-happy and keen to redeem everybody, whether they're ready or not. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 19:05:47 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What will happen to The Order o t Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051029190547.73002.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142291 Personally I think that the Order is now irrelevent. It played an active role in OOTP largely because the MoM was being difficult about facing facts and because Dumbledore was sentimentally trying to give Harry another year to enjoy his boyhood before confronting his destiny. Now that Fudge is gone, the MoM is pulling in the same direction, the WW has accepted Voldemort's return and that's one major obstacle removed. And with Dumbledore's death, the Order has lost any ability it had to make Voldemort and the DE's nervous. While some particular members of the Order will be able to bring back bits of important undercover info (Lupin and the werewolves, Hagrid and the giants), on the whole they might as well stay home and concentrate on persuading their neighbours about effective defences. I've read comments about whether Snape is going to be able to get messages to the Order and I don't think it will matter now. Harry knows what he has to do, he understands about horcruxes, and he's the only one who can bring about the end of the Dark Lord. Everything else is just ornamentation at this point. Magda __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 19:13:47 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:13:47 -0000 Subject: Annoying interruptions... + Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AyanEva" wrote: > I'll give it a go! I might just convince myself of the plausibility of > the following scenario if I keep this up. LOL :-D So, here goes: > > Snape could've stayed in bird form until 1960; we'll call him > "Snawkes." All of this could be a scheme by Dumbledore, of course, > because Dumbledore didn't trust Riddle. Once Dumbledore saw that > Riddle was turning bad for real, he had to come up with a plan to > thwart Riddle and infiltrate his circle. At this point, Dumbledore > pulled Eileen in on the plan to pretend to be Snawks' mother. At the > appropriate time, determined by Dumbledore, Snawkes appears on the > scene as 11 year old Snape. > > Since we haven't found a birth announcement Severus Snape yet (have > we? I think it was just the marriage announcement), this *proves* that > Snape as Snape didn't exist until he hit the Hogwarts scene at 11 > years old. zgirnius: Since you ask, yes, there was a birth announcement. It's in the last chapter of HBP (p. 637 US Edition). Hermione is describing her research: "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 she'd given birth to a-" "-murderer," spat Harry. "Well...yes," said Hermione. (If the announcement had been of the birth of anyone other than a boy named Severus, I'm sure Hermione would have told Harry so...) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 29 19:39:04 2005 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:39:04 -0000 Subject: Why can't Harry? WAS Re: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: Valky: > A very concise and logical point I think Beatrice. > The one thing I have not resolved to the point, I think, is why > Harry cannot live while Voldemort survives. > Here are some of the angles that sort of work for me, but they don't > simplify enough to ease my mind about it: > 1. Voldemort survives as long as Horcrux Harry lives, hence Harry > cannot live because he remains the marked man forever hunted by > Voldemort. Geoff: Why can't he live? If "he remains the marked man forever hunted by Voldemort" then he isn't dead.... I have written before as to why I do not believe the Horcrux Harry theory and I take the liberty of repeating some of the thoughts I expressed in message 139937.... But what of Harry? Why do I not believe that he is a Horcrux? Because I believe that it flies in the face of Dumbledore's now famous comment: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) It has been observed by many contributors to the group that JKR makes much of choice. Dumbledore again makes the matter clear: "Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good and kind and brave because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort" (GOF "The Beginning" p.628 UK edition). If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. He could make the choice of running away and hiding; the alternative is to face Voldemort knowing that he will go down with him. And that places him on a hiding to nothing. He has got no real choice in that eventuality. Vaiky: > 2. The Horcrux is capable of possessing Harry the moment his blood > protection ceases, hence he was doomed from the start to lose his > life and his body to Voldie at 17, unless he can destroy Voldemort > before then (or during which is probably more likely). Geoff: Considering this point, a Horcrux is merely the vehicle by which a soul piece is encased so it hasn't got an ability of itself to possess Harry. '"...The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion -" "Encase? But how -?" "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" said Slughorn, shaking his head...' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) So Voldemort would have to be close to Harry in order to use the spell at the appropriate time. We also know: '"He made seven Horcruxes?" said Harry, horror-struck... ..."I am glad to see that you appreciate the magnitude of the problem," said Dumbledore calmly. "But, firstly, no, Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six. The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his regenerated body. That was the part of him that lived a spectral existence for so many years during his exile: without that, he has no self at all."' (ibid. p.470) It has already often been suggested that Voldemort hasn't got much of his soul left but your point implies that he will have to kill again and use the soul piece to make Harry a Horcrux. But if he wants to do this, that would then destroy another piece of his soul unless he kills him first. What would that do to Harry as a potential possession candidate? Or am I going in circles here? But, looking at it purely from the mechanics of Book 7, Harry's 17th birthday will occur during the summer holidays before his entry into the Second Year Sixth Form. So, if our villainous friend was to carry out your idea successfully, Book 7 could be very short...... :-) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 20:18:14 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:18:14 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142294 > >>bboyminn: > Well, of course the analogy is flawed, I'm comparing a fantasy > fictional world to the real world, but Chinatown does illustrate > how on culture can exist somewhat isolated inside another culture. > > So, even knowing that my /illustration/ is flawed, I think it still > serves are a real world example that one smaller divergent culture > can live isolated in another larger more pervasive culture. Betsy Hp: Oh, I realize you weren't trying to draw an exact parallel. However, I think the idea of groups of wizards living together within a Muggle city or town is heading in the wrong direction. Wizards are trying to keep their culture hidden, and large gatherings would make that harder, I think. > >>bboyminn: > Also note that while it is the objective of the wizard world to > remain /secret/, it is not necessarily their objective to remain > hidden. We've seen wizards take train and subway rides. We've seen > them walk the streets of muggle London. There is no problem with > being seen in general, there is only a problem as being seens as a > wizard or as magical. Betsy Hp: Yes, I agree. The fact that Amelia Bones exists was not something she was apparently trying to hide. The fact that she was a *witch* was a secret, however. So it was important that any strangeness on her part (not having a phone, odd wardrobe choices, etc.) seemed like an anomaly rather than part of a larger culture. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I get the sense ...that wizards generally *don't* live around > > each other. > > > > And I think it *would* be easier to hide how different you > > are from your neighbors if there's only you, or just your > > immediate family. > > > >>bboyminn: > I think you've got a good point there. I suspect that part of the > secrecy protection of the wizard world says the wizards don't > gather together around muggles. > > On the other hand, 'birds of a feather flock together'. I can > envision a magical family moving into a small obscure London > neighborhood, and mentioning to a friend that a house just went up > for sale. So the friend buys the house, and the next thing you > know wizards dominate the neighborhood. > > >>Sue: > What an interesting thread! I have always seen wizards as a kind > of ethnic group, more or less (the muggle-born wizards are, > perhaps, descended from wizards who "married out"). And ethnic > groups do tend to congregate in "ghettos", simply because it's > convenient. > Betsy Hp: It *is* convenient, and it is natural for, as Steve put it, "birds of a feather to flock together". Which is why I think the MoM may well keep an eye on where wizards and witches live. I think they work hard to make sure groups *don't* congregate, as they naturally would. I think it's notable that none of Arthur's brothers live near him, and that there were no other pure-bloods living around the Blacks. It's notable that there's only one wizarding town in all of England, that *everyone* seems to do their shopping in Diagon Alley (or Knockturn Alley if that's more their speed ). I was thinking a bit more about the Chinatown analogy, and something that came to mind is the underground passages that I vaguely recall one or more Chinatowns in California having. In a sense floo powder could be seen in the same way. It's interesting that floo powder was invented around the 1200's (per the Lexicon) which is around the time the WW went into deep hiding. With floo powder there's a built in secret passage between wizards' homes. So the community still exists but is so spread out that, on the surface, there's no evidence of a community. And the existance of wizards and witches can sink safely into myth. So maybe your analogy *does* work, Steve. Only it's a very atypical community in that it's not geographically close at all. But it *is* connected by secret passageways (floo powder) and common gathering areas (Hogwarts, Hogsmeade, and tiny pockets in London). If a witch or wizard chooses to keep away from the Muggle world, though they live surrounded by Muggles, they can stay in their house, rarely venturing out, traveling by floo to wizard areas, and being seen as an odd recluse by the Muggles around them. Or, if they're a bit braver, they can venture out into town or amongst their neighbors and impress the local beauties with their ability to do card tricks. Or, (to harken back to the very beginning of this thread ) a young pure-blood witch could venture out into her local town, fall for a Muggle boy and end up marrying him. Of course, this begs the question of how a mixed-marriage like that is handled. Seamus, for example, talks about a wizard cousin of his. Does he hang with his Muggle cousins at all? Would his father's brothers or sisters or parents, etc., know about Seamus's and his mother's little secret? Betsy Hp From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 29 21:03:42 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:03:42 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142295 Betsy Hp: Of course, this begs the question of how a mixed-marriage like > that is handled. Seamus, for example, talks about a wizard cousin > of his. Does he hang with his Muggle cousins at all? Would his > father's brothers or sisters or parents, etc., know about Seamus's > and his mother's little secret? Potioncat: I think it would vary from one case to another. I could see Hermione's parents being involved in big family events with the Weasleys, but perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Grangers' siblings/parents/other relatives wouldn't know anything about the Weasleys...or about Hermione's and Ron's special abilities. Another family might keep it completely secret. I can imagine Fred...or was it George...becoming involved in the local lass...and her mother sharing with the neighbors that the Weasleys were a bit odd, but the girl seemed happy enough, and her husband was always pleasant. Now, as for Miss Prince and Mr. Snape...I've no idea! From mary.hoerr at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 16:34:24 2005 From: mary.hoerr at gmail.com (maryh10000) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:34:24 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack WAS: Re: Are appearances important to Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142296 > > > Christina: > > > > > > A good *hour*? Snape enters on page 352 (US Hardcover) and > > > reveals himself on page 357. That's five pages. Act it out; > > > Snape was listening to Lupin for less than 10 minutes. > > > > a_svirn: > > Surely not? You probably can read it in ten or even less minutes, > > but acting it out? Why, only listening to the cricked door would > > take a couple of minutes. And even if it was less than an hour it > > was still quite enough to realise that the kids were not in any > > danger from Sirius and Lupin. > Christina: > Snape enters the room to see Lupin with a > *convicted murderer* who is his childhood buddy. Snape knows that > Sirius has been entering the castle and doing very > convicted!murderer-like things like slashing a child's bedcurtains > while standing over him with a knife. Snape then finds out that > Sirius has accomplished this by using his Animagus form,information > that Lupin has kept all to himself. We see things from Harry's point > of view in the books, but from Snape's point of view, things look > different, and Lupin and Sirius look very, very guilty. (And again, > the kids were in definite danger). Maryh: I would like to point out that the kids were in very definite danger from everybody's point of view. It's that time of the month, Lupin is a werewolf, and he hasn't taken his meds. Clearly, being in moonlight isn't the only thing that causes the transformation (although it is played to dramatic effect in the book and the movie: Lupin changes when the clouds part to bathe him in moonlight) -- or the whole Shrieking Shack setup would be unnecessary. All Lupin would have to do is stay out of the moonlight. I like Lupin a lot - he's one of my favorite characters - but he is negligent to the point of criminality here. I think that's part of the reason he doesn't get quite so upset about being "outed" by Snape. Lupin's FIRST priority should have been getting the kids out of there and out of danger before he changed. If that meant knocking Sirius out, and either leaving him or bringing him back with them, he should have done it. Sirius, of course, should have thought of the same thing, but then, he's Sirius. Snape has to get those kids out of there fast. There really is no time to discuss the evidence about Sirius. As for the time involved, either Snape really was in a hurry (whether to shut Sirius up, or save the kids, or both) and the whole scene took much less than hour, or Snape wasn't really in a hurry. I don't see how you can have it both ways. As for what Snape says, he was an idiot to mention handing Sirius over to the dementors, whether he planned to or not. (And yes, I think he was perfectly capable of it; although he might have decided against it for the reasons Christina notes below.) He needed to get everyone out, and that statement wasn't exactly a good way to get everyone moving. But then, Snape's people skills are abysmal, and he doesn't like to miss an opportunity to gloat or crow when he thinks he has the upper hand. I also think that in general we should always ignore what Snape says when he tells anyone about his motivations. Snape isn't telling - all we ever know are what he WANTS people to think his motivations are. IMO we can only judge Snape by his actions. When you look at what Snape probably knows, and what he actually does, it looks like he is clearly trying to get EVERYONE out of there in one piece. If he could have counted on cooperation from the trio, I think he would have just stunned the two adults, left Lupin in the Shack to deal with later when he was no longer in his wolf form, and brought Sirius along. But he was probably afraid one of the kids would try to block any stunning or immobilizing curse he tried to throw, and get hit instead. Of course, Pettigrew would have escaped, which he ended up doing anyway. But at least there wouldn't have been a werewolf loose on the grounds of Hogwarts. And the trio's actions put Sirius in more danger of having his soul sucked out by dementors than Snape's did. It was only the timeturner that prevented it. Let's look at two versions of what might have happened if Snape hadn't shown up: Version 1: Sirius convinces everybody of his innocence because Pettigrew is forced to reveal himself, they decide to take Pettigrew in, everyone steps out into the moonlight, Lupin transforms, Pettigrew escapes, Sirius almost gets his soul sucked out by dementors. In other words, exactly what DID happen anyway. Version 2: Sirius convinces everybody of his innocence because Pettigrew is forced to reveal himself, they decide to take Pettigrew in, Lupin remembers "Whoops. I'm a werewolf, it's that time of the month, and I haven't taken my meds. I think I'll stay here, and you kids go on ahead with Sirius." Actually, version 1 still seems more likely to me because Snape has actually reminded everyone that LUPIN DIDN'T TAKE THE POTION, and called him a werewolf several times, and everyone STILL forgot that maybe it wasn't a real good idea to hang around Lupin too long just now, or let him actually get into the moonlight. > Christina: > > Nowhere have I said that I think that Snape is pure as the morning. > He *couldn't* purposefully sic the dementors on Sirius- Snape might > hate Sirius, but he's not stupid (he is a Slytherin, after all...self > preservation is highly prioritized). Snape wasn't going to give in to > hatred when he could return Sirius to Fudge- look at the praise he > gets! Look at the medal he is offered! He even gets to whisper a bit > in Fudges's ear about how much everyone has been spoiling Harry. > Sirius Black is still going to get his soul sucked out. It's > Christmas morning in Snapeland. "Christmas morning in Snapeland." That made me chuckle! And Snape almost always sublimates hatred to the greater good of Snape. In all of my analysis above, nothing implies that Snape is a particularly nice person, or even necessarily rules out Snape having been a loyal DE during LV's last time in power. He had plenty of other motivation to save the kids. One can do the right thing for very non-altruistic reasons. Maryh. From agdisney at msn.com Sat Oct 29 17:23:46 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:23:46 -0400 Subject: Time Turners References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142297 Lucianam: Which brings me to the point: why did Dumbledore allow, or even, suggest, that Harry and Hermione would go back in Time and change history, that particular time? Why was it ok then, but not ok, say, to save Cedric or Sirius or Harry's parents? agdisney writes: When Harry & Hermione went back in time, Sirius & Buckbeak were still alive. I don't believe Buckbeak had been killed and DD knew that. Since they hadn't been killed yet, that's why Harry & Hermione were able to change history. IMO. I don't think it would be possible to go back in time & bring the others back to life since we know they have been killed. Just my thoughts. agdisney From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Oct 29 22:05:16 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:05:16 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turners Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142298 In a message dated 10/29/2005 5:46:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, agdisney at msn.com writes: When Harry & Hermione went back in time, Sirius & Buckbeak were still alive. I don't believe Buckbeak had been killed and DD knew that. Since they hadn't been killed yet, that's why Harry & Hermione were able to change history. IMO. I don't think it would be possible to go back in time & bring the others back to life since we know they have been killed. Just my thoughts. ====================== Sherrie here: The key is that we don't know that Buckbeak WAS killed in the first go-round. Neither the Trio, nor we, SAW him die - we (and they) HEARD what we assumed was the axe hitting his neck - but we later find that that was the axe going into the fencepost. IMHO, the actions of Harry II & Hermione II were necessarily already a part of the time stream - they had to be there because they WERE there, the first time around. Otherwise, Harry I could not have seen Harry II cast the patronus. (I refer you to Robert Heinlein's TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE & subsequent Lazarus Long books, or Harlan Ellison's "One Life, Furnished in Early Poverty", for a better explanation of why a time traveler can't really change history, because what's going to happen, HAS happened, & they become the agent of MAKING it happen - Harry Turtledove notwithstanding.) Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Sat Oct 29 22:24:03 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:24:03 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142299 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: > > Well, as a man who had nearly escaped Azkaban some years previously > he would certainly have been wary of the Law. Much as he wanted to > kill Sirius, in front of the three or four (if we count Lupin) > witnesses he would have needed a "reason" very badly. As for > authorities, yes Sirius has been sentenced to the kiss, so he could > feed him to a Dementor without any reprisal. > I just wanted to ask one thing - Dementors aren't particular about whom they kiss, so it would seem to me that Snape would be taking a pretty big chance to give Sirius to the Dementors alone, without anyone else around to *control* the dementors. We have read that DD has warned the students not to try to leave the school grounds, stating that "It is not in the nature of a dementor to understand pleading or excuses." p 92 Am Ed Hardback. Also, when Harry asks Lupin why the dementors affect him so much, Lupin explains "The dementors affects you worse than the others because there are horrors in your past that the others don't have". p. 187 And on page 188, Lupin states that the dementors are hungry, because DD won't let them into the school So, knowing that dementors are picky and can feed on anyone, innocent or not, and they are hungry, and I am sure Snape has seen some horrors back in his DE days, why would Snape take the risk to try to feed Sirius to the dementor all by his lonesone? Doesn't make any sense - Snape, as you stated in an earlier post, is no dimwit, and I doubt he would carry out a feeding to a pack of dementors in the forest without any other wizard around to help him keep them back. Of course, Snape is *supposed* to have a Patronus, but if he uses it, won't that drive the dementors away from Sirius? There are more than one - there are a lot of them and I can imagine they would swoop down & starting feeding on either of them. seens a bit risky to me and Snape isn't the type, outside of his spying, that seems to risk his life. Again, this scene reads like a typical revenge scene, where Snape & Sirius are a each other's throats, taunting one another and Snape has the upperhand until the Trio knock him out. colebiancardi (and those 5 pages do not translate into one hour of acting. It is all dialogue - try reading it outloud - 10 minutes tops) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 29 23:06:48 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:06:48 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142300 > colebiancardi: > I just wanted to ask one thing - Dementors aren't particular about > whom they kiss, so it would seem to me that Snape would be taking a > pretty big chance to give Sirius to the Dementors alone, without > anyone else around to *control* the dementors. We have read that DD > has warned the students not to try to leave the school grounds, > stating that "It is not in the nature of a dementor to understand > pleading or excuses." p 92 Am Ed Hardback. Also, when Harry asks > Lupin why the dementors affect him so much, Lupin explains "The > dementors affects you worse than the others because there are horrors > in your past that the others don't have". p. 187 And on page 188, > Lupin states that the dementors are hungry, because DD won't let them > into the school > > So, knowing that dementors are picky and can feed on anyone, innocent > or not, and they are hungry, and I am sure Snape has seen some horrors > back in his DE days, why would Snape take the risk to try to feed > Sirius to the dementor all by his lonesone? a_svirn: And yet there are ways to deal with them. Otherwise how could the Ministry employ them at all? More than one way apparently, considering that Snape and Harry disagreed on the subject in HBP. I am pretty sure that Snape, being as he is such a Dark Arts expert, would know just how to handle them. Don't forget the context of the quote you give: Dumbledore addresses himself to his *students* most of whom had never even tried to conjure a Patronus. Fudge for one feels himself quite confident dealing with them without a single Auror at hand. And in GoF a Dementor that de-souled Barty was pretty particular: "The moment that - that thing entered the room," she screamed, pointing at Fudge, trembling all over, "it *swooped down on Crouch* and - and -" (emphasis mine ? a_svirn). Interestingly enough, the excuses that Fudge conjured for his behavior sound very much like Snape's dismissal of the Trio's testimony: "Why he killed them? Well, that's no mystery, is it?" blustered Fudge. "He was a raving lunatic!" Compare with Snape's: "You see, Minister?" said Snape. "Confunded, both of them...." Looks like Fudge learned from the master. Or from the Potions Master. > colebiancardi > (and those 5 pages do not translate into one hour of acting. It is > all dialogue - try reading it outloud - 10 minutes tops) > a_svirn: All right, it's not an hour. Maybe just a quarter of an hour (come on, be generous). What difference does it make? It still means that he stood there and listened to their fond memories, simultaneously discovering their animagi secret. From muellem at bc.edu Sat Oct 29 23:32:59 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:32:59 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > colebiancardi: > > > I just wanted to ask one thing - Dementors aren't particular about > > whom they kiss, so it would seem to me that Snape would be taking a > > pretty big chance to give Sirius to the Dementors alone, without > > anyone else around to *control* the dementors. >a_svirn: > And yet there are ways to deal with them. Otherwise how could the > Ministry employ them at all? More than one way apparently, > considering that Snape and Harry disagreed on the subject in HBP. I > am pretty sure that Snape, being as he is such a Dark Arts expert, > would know just how to handle them. Don't forget the context of the > quote you give: Dumbledore addresses himself to his *students* most > of whom had never even tried to conjure a Patronus. Fudge for one > feels himself quite confident dealing with them without a single > Auror at hand. And in GoF a Dementor that de-souled Barty was pretty > particular: > > "The moment that - that thing entered the room," she screamed, > pointing at Fudge, trembling all over, "it *swooped down on Crouch* > and - and -" (emphasis mine ? a_svirn). > > Interestingly enough, the excuses that Fudge conjured for his > behavior sound very much like Snape's dismissal of the Trio's > testimony: > > "Why he killed them? Well, that's no mystery, is it?" blustered > Fudge. "He was a raving lunatic!" > > Compare with Snape's: > > "You see, Minister?" said Snape. "Confunded, both of them...." > > Looks like Fudge learned from the master. Or from the Potions > Master. > see, I think the MoM HAS ways to control the dementors - I mean really control them. Re: Umbridge, Fudge in your scene above. The dementors "work" for the MoM, not Hogwarts. So, I still think Snape would be taking on a huge risk with all the dementors out there in the forest(there are more than one or two - there is quite a few of them). Since Snape is not an employee of MoM, I doubt he can control them - sure, he could fight them back, but how many of them at a time? And if he fought all of them back, well, Sirius wouldn't have been kissed. > > > > colebiancardi > > (and those 5 pages do not translate into one hour of acting. It is > > all dialogue - try reading it outloud - 10 minutes tops) > > > > a_svirn: > > All right, it's not an hour. Maybe just a quarter of an hour (come > on, be generous). What difference does it make? It still means that > he stood there and listened to their fond memories, simultaneously > discovering their animagi secret. > I am not arguing that Snape heard about their secrets, just a) he didn't hear Peter's shape(a rat) and how Peter has been hiding as scabbers all those past 12 years. All Snape heard was about Lupin's past, the animagi, and that Snape, in a way, was right about Lupin all the time and the Prank - which is when Snape revealed himself. colebiancardi From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 00:01:08 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:01:08 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142302 > >>Betsy Hp: > >Why does Snape need a dementor? If he's ESE or bent on revenge or > >especially trying to hide Peter's true role in the Potters' death, > >why not just kill Sirius himself? He could kill Sirius, knock out > >Harry and then hunt down and kill Lupin, if he so desires. > >Actually, I'm kind of wondering why Snape felt he had to wait for > >Sirius to give him a reason back in the Shack, if he's evil and > >all. > >>a_svirn: > Why, to avoid Azkaban, of course. If a wizard with a DE record > used an Unforgivable, I really don't think he would have been able > to avoid punishment even with Dumbledore on his side. Also there > is a little matter of inquiry. Snape clearly does not want anyone > to pry in this too closely. Betsy Hp: Ahh, but we're talking about the WW here. You know, the place that sent Sirius to Azkaban without fussing much about a trial? I somehow think that if Snape showed up with Sirius's corpse in his clutches Fudge would give out medals first and ask questions... well, never. > >>Alla: > Oh, I think Snape chose a PERFECT revenge on Sirius. I wonder, what > Sirius would have preferred, if asked - to be killed fast with AK > or to be put back to the Dementors, who made you so miserable and > eventually insane, that is if we assume that Sirius would not have > received kiss right away. I believe that after spending twelve > years in Dementors company , Sirius really really did not want to > see them again. Betsy Hp: Oh, I'm sure Snape enjoyed Sirius's eyes filling with fear when he mentioned the Dementors. But I honestly doubt that his entire goal was making Sirius squirm. (Sirius turned out to be one of the easier Marauders for Snape to get over, I think. Too much emotion on display for Snape to play with.) > >>Betsy Hp: > >Bellatrix (and those who came to Azkaban with her) would have > >realized there was a *double-crosser*. I don't think it's clear > >that they knew exactly who the double-crosser was. Maybe the Death > >Eaters knew there was a spy but didn't know the spy's identity. > >>a_svirn: > Actually, I think you are quite right. I too think that they > meant "someone else". Pettigrew does not fit the description, > because he never "double-crossed" them. He only double-crossed the > Order and the Potters. > Betsy Hp: But they think (or Sirius implied that any Death Eater would think) that the double-crosser did another double-cross and lead Voldemort to his doom. So to Bellatrix and those who think like her, Pettigrew *is* a double-double-crosser. > >>Alla: > But it IS a reasonable interpretation of Sirius' words that they > indeed knew, won't you agree? I wonder how Snape is different from > them that he did not know, if they indeed knew, of course. Betsy Hp: Or sure. Yes, it's reasonable. Though, I do think it makes more sense for Voldemort to keep such a well-placed spy a secret known only to him. But if he did share that information with a few Death Eaters it would make sense that Snape was not among them. If Snape is ever discovered by Dumbledore it's important that he not be able to give Peter away. (And vice versa I'd imagine. I wonder if Peter knew who informed Dumbledore of Voldemort's interest in the Potters in the first place.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > >Remember, Snape is sure (and Lupin admits) that Lupin has > >completely fooled *Dumbledore*. Snape is wary enough of Lupin to > >actually back out of a room Lupin is in. It's not a stretch at > >all, IMO, to think that Lupin *has* cast a spell on the children > >so that they will be more easily taken (or so they remain in the > >Shack long enough for him to transform). > >>a_svirn: > You mean Snape thought that all those reminiscences were nothing > else but a way to while away the time before Lupin's > transformation? > Betsy Hp: I'm not going to try and fathom the way a werewolf's mind works . Seriously though, the fact Snape says this suggests that he can't penetrate Lupin's mind. Either Lupin's not a bad Occlumens himself, or it's some aspect of being a werewolf. Either way Lupin is a dark horse to Snape. So yeah, maybe Lupin gets off on eating children and figures he'll delay the kids long enough to get himself a night-time snack. Or, Lupin thinks Harry has potential to be the next Dark Lord and is planning to squirrel him away somewhere. Or he just enjoys toying with the kids until it's time to kill them. I doubt Snape worried too much about Lupin's motivations. He obviously saw the Marauders as a bunch of sadists who grew up to betray their friend and follow Voldemort. Harry, Hermione, and Ron are all armed at this point, but they're clearly under Lupin's influence. What Snape saw was the need to change the balance of power in the room, take Lupin down and put Sirius under wand point. Which he achieves. What he underestimates is the influence Lupin has managed to get over the children. > >>Betsy Hp: > >We don't get to see into Snape's mind, so really, any > >scenario works. But the fact that he feels he needs a *reason* to > >kill Sirius, the fact that he wants to turn the criminals over to > >the authorities (and the dementors, creepy as they are, are the > >authorities) does suggest a certain obedience to the law. At > >least, IMO. > >>a_svirn: > Well, as a man who had nearly escaped Azkaban some years > previously he would certainly have been wary of the Law. Much as > he wanted to kill Sirius, in front of the three or four (if we > count Lupin) witnesses he would have needed a "reason" very badly. > Betsy Hp: I have a feeling Snape knows how to cast an Oblivate. Any fuzziness on the childrens' part would be due to the confunding spell Lupin put them under. As to Lupin, well, he'd be pulled in as a werewolf, in full snarling mode. I doubt he'd last the night, and even if he did, I doubt any testimony of his would be listened to by the Ministry. Of course, there is Dumbledore. I doubt Snape could have pulled the wool over his eyes as easily as Fudge's. (Though isn't that the basic principle of the ESE!Snape argument? That Snape is an expert when it comes to fooling Dumbledore?) > >>Alla: > It can also suggest that Snape likes his revenge served with the > audience around and praising him as hero in the meantime, at least > IMO. Betsy Hp: If Snape showed up with Sirius's body he'd have had the applause and the praise. And he'd have had the joy of killing Sirius himself. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 00:35:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:35:51 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142303 > Betsy Hp: > Ahh, but we're talking about the WW here. You know, the place that > sent Sirius to Azkaban without fussing much about a trial? I > somehow think that if Snape showed up with Sirius's corpse in his > clutches Fudge would give out medals first and ask questions... > well, never. Alla: I don't think that it would be totally up to Fudge to sidestep the inquiry about unauthorized use of Unforgivable, I also have a feeling that Fudge would jump to the chance to, and I don't know NOT to give Snape a medal. Remember how he treats Snape after Snape's little outburst? "Fellow seems quite unbalanced," said Fudge, staring after him. "I'd watch out for him, if I were you, Dumbledore" - PoA, p.420, paperback. Nope, I don't think that Snape would have gotten no questions if he showed up with dead Sirius. Just my feeling based on how I read Fudge. I think he would be VERY happy to put the man with DE past to Azkaban. JMO, of course. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I'm sure Snape enjoyed Sirius's eyes filling with fear when he > mentioned the Dementors. But I honestly doubt that his entire goal > was making Sirius squirm. (Sirius turned out to be one of the > easier Marauders for Snape to get over, I think. Too much emotion > on display for Snape to play with.) Alla: No, it was only half of his goal. :-) Other half could have been to silence Remus forever. :) Then there is a possibility that a_svirn raises that Snape may have knew about Peter all along, so then his whole goal would be covering his tracks. I love this one of course. Not sure if this would turn out to be true, since I think that all Snape wanted was revenge, but would be fun if it was. >> Betsy Hp: > Or sure. Yes, it's reasonable. Though, I do think it makes more > sense for Voldemort to keep such a well-placed spy a secret known > only to him. But if he did share that information with a few Death > Eaters it would make sense that Snape was not among them. Alla: As I said, I do not share the theory that Voldemort has much common sense at all. To me it makes perfect sense to imagine that Voldemort may have bragged to Snape as one of his most trusted followers how he managed to get rid of Potters with the help of the little rat, named Wormtail. Just as he bragged to other DE how easily he would kill Harry during Graveyeard. but this is just me speculating. > > >>Alla: > > It can also suggest that Snape likes his revenge served with the > > audience around and praising him as hero in the meantime, at least > > IMO. > > Betsy Hp: > If Snape showed up with Sirius's body he'd have had the applause and > the praise. And he'd have had the joy of killing Sirius himself. Alla: Hmmm, he may have gotten the praise OR instead of the praise he may have gotten investigation into events of that night. And even though you said in the part where I snipped that Snape knows how to cast "Obliviate!" which I am sure he does, I disagree that because of that he would have avoided investigation all together. You know, Aurors may have wanted to know the circumstances of Black death, if nothing else. Dumbledore may have wanted to know how exactly kids ended up spending night with Snape of all people and not remembering anything about that night at that. And all what it takes is to take Snape wand and check it for curses. I mean, he could have do wandless magic of course, but since he was using his wand quite often in the Shack, I don't think he would have done that. What I am trying to say is that Snape showing up with Sirius body would not have given him ONLY praise, it could have brought troubles also ( or not of course) But I don't think Snape wanted to take this chance, I think he wanted to be sure that Sirius will be kissed and he (Snape) would be a hero. Not the subject of inquiries and maybe Hero, but just Hero, nothing else and Temporarily Alive! Sirius gives Snape more chances to be the Hero, IMO. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 00:37:30 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:37:30 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142304 > >>Potioncat: > I think it would vary from one case to another. I could see > Hermione's parents being involved in big family events with the > Weasleys, but perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Grangers' > siblings/parents/other relatives wouldn't know anything about the > Weasleys...or about Hermione's and Ron's special abilities. > Another family might keep it completely secret. > I can imagine Fred...or was it George...becoming involved in the > local lass...and her mother sharing with the neighbors that the > Weasleys were a bit odd, but the girl seemed happy enough, and her > husband was always pleasant. > Now, as for Miss Prince and Mr. Snape...I've no idea! Betsy Hp: We know with the Dursleys that Petunia told Vernon about her sister's "special talent", but that they didn't share that information with Vernon's sister, Marge. I'm not sure if there's a rule about it at the MoM (would they be that particular?) but it could well be, as you say, Potioncat, dependent on each family. For one, there's the possibility that folks will think you're crazy. For another, a secret is always a burden, so I imagine you'd be careful about who you laid that burden on. This is pure speculation (obviously! ) but I imagine the secret would stay pretty close to the immediate family. Kind of a need-to-know sort of thing. One thing JKR did beautifully with Voldemort's parents (IMO) was turn a cliche on it's head. Instead of the spoiled, selfish Muggle taking evil advantage of a simple village witch, we had the witch taking advantage of the helpless Muggle. So I suspect (and hope) that the Prince/Snape relationship will also be somewhat original. So hopefully that wasn't Snape's dad yelling at his mom in the OotP memory. It'd be nice if they had a healthy relationship and poor Snape had a few years of comfort and normalcy. Betsy Hp From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Oct 30 02:53:45 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:53:45 -0000 Subject: Octavius Pepper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142305 Luckdragon: Most of the people missing or killed since LV's return are already known to us; but I have not been able to find anything on Octavius Pepper whom the trio found out to have vanished in HBP chpt. 21. All of Jo's previous references to Pepper throughout the series have to do with heat, fire, steam. Anyone have any ideas on why LV may have taken Octavius? Could there be any truth to the fire army Luna mentioned in the past. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 30 04:35:18 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:35:18 -0000 Subject: MsgPatronus/ChapterQuestions/Village/Narcissa/Gobstones/Draco/PurpleCurse/LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142306 houyhnhnm wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142013 : << No canon support whatsoever except for the fact that patroni are bright and silvery, but I imagine a message being incorporated into the happy thought that produces the patronus. I imagine when a patronus is intercepted it is drawn into the wand of the Witch or Wizard who receives it, and then put into the head like a thought being retrieved from a pensieve. >> Oh, no, how embarrassing! For example, if at one time Hermione's happy thought was kissing Viktor, she would probably be embarrassed for anyone to know, and especially *un*happy for Ron to know, which would make a problem if she had to send a message to Ron. Potioncat summarised Chapter 2 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142027 and asked: << 1. Bellatrix kills a fox, thinking it could be an Auror. Does she suspect Snape's home is being watched, or is she always looking over her shoulder for an Auror? Do you think all DEs would be this trigger happy, or is it just Bella? >> I think Bella just enjoys killing (altho' she enjoys preceding it with torture even more) and said 'Auror' just as an excuse. Some of the other DEs would do the same, some would like to but are too cautious, some don't actually enjoy killing as fun. Poor fox. ( *big grin* at Marianne's reply in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142036 : << OTOH, maybe she's fixated on canine Animagi . >> ) << 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long do you think Snape has been using this location? >> Unlike most people in this list, I don't assume it was Snape's childhood home (so far, my assumptions have turned out wrong and the majority assumptions right *sigh*). I think he bought it from Muggles, and repaired, remodelled, furnished, and magically concealed it from Muggles with money from his Hogwarts salary. << 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? >> I never thought about the "padded cell" description before! My emotional reaction to walls covered with shelves of leatherbound books, coupled with my emotional reaction to shabby but overstuffed furniture, had me feeling more like he was inside a jewelry box (also padded, often in quilted velvet or satin, for protection and cherishing of the valuable contents). Thus, I assumed it was his usual hide-out when compelled to leave Hogwarts for summer holiday. Krista wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142205 : << (Hence the only things in the house of a personal nature are his books, which are all in the front room, giving a sense that he hasn't quite "entered" the house himself, to ditch his stuff in the front room.) >> I hate to interfere with such a nice bit of literary analysis, but we never saw any other rooms of the house, so how do we KNOW that they aren't stuffed with personal items? I assume he had at least some clothing in his bedroom. I don't *really* believe that his summer hobby was being a fanatic gourmet chef with a kitchen full of carefully chosen and even more carefully cared for carbon-steel knives and copper-bottom saucepans.... Alla replied to 'What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape?' in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142030 : << That he needs a better looking furniture and is in desperate need of more socialising with his neighbors? :-) >> I think (maybe the invoked sociologist will tell us) that most of the houses in that neighborhood are uninhabited, and the inhabited ones (other than Snape's) are occupied by squatters. (It seems that there is some other section of town within walking distance where these squatters find people from whom to beg for 'spare change' and fast food places where to spend the receipts.) Snape would choose a deserted neighborhood both for ease of hiding and for misanthropy. Jaimee wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142280 : << this truly seemed like Snape was pleased that Naracissa was there to see him. I have seen him be catty to Harry, Hermione, Bellatrix, any number of people; respectful toward Dumbledore; even shown favoritism to Draco; but never truly pleased to see anyone. >> Um. In OoP, I think he was pleased to see McGonagall return from St Mungo's healthy again. My mind 'sees' him 'striding forward' with a smile on his face and warmth in his voice, but I must admit that the canon doesn't *specify* his tone of voice or facial expression: "Professor McGonagall had just stumped up the stone, steps into the castle; she was carrying a tartan carpetbag in one hand and leaning heavily on a walking stick with her other, but otherwise looked quite well. 'Professor McGonagall!' said Snape, striding forwards. 'Out of St Mungo's, I see!'" Goddlefrood wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142047 : << When an Englishwoman describes a charming village, as JKR does thorugh Dumbledore, >> Wasn't Dumbledore description of Budleigh Babberton as a 'charming village' pure sarcasm? Now that you've got me thinking, maybe it's a 'charming' village because many houses are occupied by wizards and witches who cast charms. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142057 : << On a side note, I think that Narcissa's parents named their last child after a flower, breaking with the family tradition of using stars or constellations, because with her blue eyes and golden hair, she didn't look like a Black. >> Good idea, maybe better than mine that maybe the wizarding folk have named some star 'Narcissa', so that she *is* named after a star. I tried to make 'Elladora' into an astronomical name, but could not find any L Doradus for her to be named after. Potioncat wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142089 : << I think Eileen gets "No respect" for being President of the Gobstones Club. (snip) we see her in a leadership role on a recreational team that is competitive enough to play against other schools. >> What I've wondered since first reading that Daily Prophet caption is WHAT other schools does the Hogwarts Gobstones Club play against? Beauxbatons and Durmstrang? Kmalone1127 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142092 : << Why did he take Draco with him as he fled Hogwarts? Snape has just made himself Voldemort's top man, he could have left him there for the Order to deal with. I firmly believe that Voldemort meant for Draco to fail, so is Snape taking him back for punishment or for some other reason? >> I thought Snape was taking Draco away to hide him, to save him from LV. Which could mean that Snape has to run and hide as much from LV's followers as from the good guys, if he can't talk LV out of being angry at being deprived of the opportunity to kill Draco. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142259 : << what was that purple one cast silently by Dolohov that sent Hermione to the hospital wing? >> Someone suggested that it was the Entrail-Expelling Curse mentioned in OoP: "there was a portrait of a rather vicious-looking wizard on the wall, captioned: Urquhart Rackharrow, 1612-1697, Inventor of the Entrail-expelling Curse." (Seen when they first visit Arthur at St Mungo's.) A nice, comforting thing to put on the wall of an injured person's hospital room! I am reminded of one of my friends who had a heart attack in a very sweet Catholic hospital and complained that the dripping blood in the Crucification picture on the wall gave him nightmares, so the nice nun took it down. Eileen Nicholson wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142290 : << Voldemort seems fairly one-dimensional now - did he ever have a conscience >> I think he never did. I think he was born a sociopath, I mean something in his brain that didn't let him have a choice as to how he would respond to the unfortunate circumstances of his upbringing. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 30 04:57:27 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:57:27 -0000 Subject: Narcissa/Gobstones/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142307 > > Carol wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142057 : > > << On a side note, I think that Narcissa's parents named their last > child after a flower, breaking with the family tradition of using > stars or constellations, because with her blue eyes and golden hair, > she didn't look like a Black. >> >Catlady: > Good idea, maybe better than mine that maybe the wizarding folk > have named some star 'Narcissa', so that she *is* named after a star Potioncat: The real reason, IIRC, is that JKR had set on the name and decided to keep it, even though it broke it the pattern. I think there is a star named for the male Narcissus, but I couldn't prove it.> > Potioncat wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142089 : > > << I think Eileen gets "No respect" for being President of the > Gobstones Club. (snip) we see her in a leadership role on a > recreational team that is competitive enough to play against other > schools. >> > > What I've wondered since first reading that Daily Prophet caption is > WHAT other schools does the Hogwarts Gobstones Club play against? > Beauxbatons and Durmstrang? Potioncat: That would be my guess. But I wonder, why did she look so sullen? Was the Hogwarts team losing? Was the young Beauxbatons wizard kissing the young Drumstrang witch? > From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 30 06:30:44 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:30:44 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142308 Goddlefrood: > This set some alarm bells ringing when I recently reread OotP. Why > would the portrait be done in such a horrendous manner? Surely the > subject of the portrait would want to be seen in a better light > than she actually is. Then it occurred to me that Dumbledore's > portrait appeared on the wall of his former office shortly after > his death and without too much of a stretch I concluded that > perhaps Mrs. Black's portrait appeared on the wall in the hall > shortly after her death. Jen: Now this is a very interesting theory. I remember wondering why we never heard a first name for Mrs. Black even though she was mentioned frequently, and also why we never heard *anything* about Mr. Black, except when Sirius talked about his parents together. I imagined Mr. Black to be a quiet, subservient type since he was married to the likes of Mrs. Black, and Sirius lumped them together because his Dad never openly crossed Mrs. Black's demands or wishes. In fact, while I like your theory, I also like the idea of a timid Mr. Black who intiated one courageous plot in his life by stealing the horcrux and avenging his son's death. Goddlefrood: > The description of rolling eyes, yellowing skin and the matter of > torture being mentioned suggested to me a more advanced state of > poisoning than the point Dumbledore had reached atop the tower. It > sounds to me like the condition somebody would be in at death if > that death were caused by slow poisoning from the potion in the > cave. (A leap). It would also account for the apparent vast > difference in age between Sirius and his mother in that the potion > has the effect of making the person drinking it look older than > they are over time. Jen: I hadn't noticed this before, but the Lexicon also mentioned how old Mrs. Black appeared in the portrait and wondered if she had her children later in life or was aged 'unnaturally'.. I like your idea of a slow-acting poison. Although this brings up something curious. Dumbledore never exactly said that the green goo was a poison, instead saying it wouldn't kill the drinker right away. It's conceivable to me this was a typically vague Dumbledore statement because he wasn't certain of the mechanism, but the real poison in the cave was in the lake. Voldemort ensured the death of the drinker not via the green goo, but because that drink would cause unbearable thirstiness and lead to drinking the lake water, which *was* a poison (thus not being killed right away until thirst overcomes you). Whatever the case, Harry understood Dumbledore to mean the green drink wasn't poison: "No,..no, you're not dead, you said it wasn't poison, wake up, wake up--" (chap. 26, p. 536, Bloomsbury) Goddlefrood: > Piecing it together I propose that Regulus was asked to do a job > that was equaly irksome as Draco's in HBP but in Regulus's case he > decided to back out rather than proceed. Jen: The fact that Regulus died in 1980 makes me think he was drafted to assist with the plan to kill the Potters (or Longbottoms, if LV was still deciding who to target). Perhaps Regulus was given the job of torturing Sirius in hopes of luring the Potters out of hiding, but couldn't go through with it. That seems like the type of sadistic job Voldemort would require a new DE to perform. Goddlefrood: > While he was a DE he came to know of LV's steps to secure him from > death. Mrs. Black from this snippet of information garnered from > her favourite boy, and possibly because she was at Hogwarts at the > same time as LV, deduced that LV had made a Horcrux (note > singular). She would have known of his roots and could have found > out about the cave from inquiries with the orphanage. She then > took Regulus with her to the cave and retrieved the heavy locket > come across by Harry and co. in Chapter Six of OotP. Jen: First, I think it's impossible Mrs. Black took Regulus. If he died in 1980 that would mean whatever poison she ingested took 5 years to finish her off. Even though Dumbledore didn't die immediately from the potion (or the water splashed on his face if that was the poison), he still didn't appear to be someone who was going to make it for 5 more years. The suggestion Mrs. Black knew Voldemort made a horcrux, and then was able to locate the cave, seems pretty incredible. It took Dumbledore almost a year to find the cave and he was armed with the location of the orphange, the story about the cave from Mrs. Cole and the means to visit all possible sea-side villages set into the cliffs which were close enough for a day trip from the orphanage. 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. Don't get me wrong here, I'd love to know how RAB knew about and located the horcrux when it took Dumbledore 5 years to figure out this information, research it, track down memories and finally locate the ring and the cave. Goddlefrood: > Alternatively she took Kreacher with her some time after Regulus's > death and died a lingering death by poison. Regulus is a favoured > son as indicated by the Black family tapestry. Mrs. Black, despite > her alleged approval of the Dark Arts, would want some form of > vengeance for her only loyal boy. Jen: This scenario seems much more possible with the timing of the story. The major question again is how they found the cave. Goddlefrood: > Mrs. Black would have been well able, if my suppositions are > correct to replace the potion in the bowl at the cave. She then > deteriorated into the woman pictured in the portrait and died > alone and forgotten. Sirius misjudges another character, as he has > been prone to do. Jen: Either she was able to make the potion or there was a refilling charm, as others have speculated. Though you have to wonder about that last one as Voldemort would not expect anyone to find his cave, let alone drink the potion! As for Sirius misjudging Mrs. Black, there was enough evidence she was an unbalanced person long before any poison she might of drunk. Perpetuating the house-elf head wall-of-fame; acting intolerable to the point Sirius ran away at 16; burning people off the tapestry for Muggle marriages or just because they pissed her off. Sirius doesn't seem to think the portrait was an innacurate portrayl of his mom from when he last saw her, though since he *hadn't* seen her in years, he might have attributed her aged look and her yellowing skin to the natural aging of a bitter woman rather than poison. > R.I.P. Romula Andromeda Black? > Goddlefrood Jen: Love it! Or how 'bout Rigel Alpha Black if it was Dad? Jen From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 30 00:32:10 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:32:10 -0000 Subject: What will happen to The Order o t Phoenix In-Reply-To: <20051029190547.73002.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142309 Magda Grantwich wrote: > (snipped) > Personally I think that the Order is now irrelevent. It played an > active role in OOTP largely because the MoM was being difficult about > facing facts and because Dumbledore was sentimentally trying to give > Harry another year to enjoy his boyhood before confronting his > destiny. Now that Fudge is gone, the MoM is pulling in the same > direction, the WW has accepted Voldemort's return and that's one > major obstacle removed. > > And with Dumbledore's death, the Order has lost any ability it had to > make Voldemort and the DE's nervous. While some particular members > of the Order will be able to bring back bits of important undercover > info (Lupin and the werewolves, Hagrid and the giants), on the whole > they might as well stay home and concentrate on persuading their > neighbours about effective defences. > Hmm. Yes, but the members of the OotP are still the grown-ups Harry can trust. The idea of Harry coming of age can be overestimated. I think a seventeen year old is pretty much a child; he still needs the help of adults. I understand JKR's general idea of Harry going alone in his quest, but I don't think it's practical and doubt she'll really carry it on. Why would Harry not ask for help? How could that be a bad thing? He wouldn't be walking away from his responsability, he would be acting wisely if he allowed the Order to help him. He's the only one who can kill Voldemort, but there's so much else to be done. The Horcruxes (I'm not too thrilled about them, they're so boring!) have to be found and secured. A way to destroy them has to be studied. Possibly destroying a Horcrux is very dangerous so you'd need help from expert wizards (Dumbledore needed Snape's help). There's the Death Eaters to be fought, there's Dementors, werewolves, etc. I think Harry would be an arrogant fool if he didn't ask the Order to help him out. Lucianam From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Oct 30 07:15:01 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:15:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <442925558.20051030001501@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142310 Saturday, October 29, 2005, 9:24:53 AM, lucianam73 wrote: l> Yep, but even with Time Travel being sticky (as smilingator put it) l> and all Time Turners being gone, it's very likely JKR will pull more l> TTs in B7. I think that in the Potterverse, the real purpose of Time travel is not to "change" anything, but to be in two places at once. Example: H & H didn't "undo" Buckbeak's death, he was always saved by Future!H & H -- The trio just misinterpreted the whoosh of the axe the first time around. I predict that the use that will be made of Time Turners in Book 7 will be to allow H, R & H (and Ginny?) to continue to attend Hogwarts *and* look for the Horcruxes, in the same time frame. -- Dave From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 07:16:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:16:26 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>bboyminn: > > Well, of course the analogy is flawed, I'm comparing a fantasy > > fictional world to the real world, but Chinatown does illustrate > > ... a real world example that one smaller divergent culture > > can live isolated in another larger more pervasive culture. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I realize you weren't trying to draw an exact parallel. > However, I think the idea of groups of wizards living together > within a Muggle city or town is heading in the wrong direction. > Wizards are trying to keep their culture hidden, and large > gatherings would make that harder, I think. > bboyminn: Actually, I thing we are more in agreement that it might seem. There is a limit to my analogy, and I do like to bring it up when the discussion turns in this direction. Not you, but other people find it difficult to impossible to believe that one divergent culture like the Wizard World could exist inside another larger prevasive culture like the UK muggle world. My Chinatown analogy points out the it is actually very common for just such a thing to occur. But the analogy doesn't go much farther than that when applied to the Wizard World. Another smaller secret societies might be the Freemasons (Masonic Temple); again, even that analogy is flawed, but, within reason, Freemason live all around us, and you never really know, your neighbor might be one. > > >>bboyminn: > > Also note that while it is the objective of the wizard world to > > remain /secret/, it is not necessarily their objective to remain > > hidden. ... > > Betsy Hp: > Yes, I agree. ... Amelia Bones exists ... The fact that she was > a *witch* was a secret, however. So it was important that any > strangeness on her part (not having a phone, odd wardrobe choices, > etc.) seemed like an anomaly rather than part of a larger culture. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > ... > > > And I think it *would* be easier to hide how different you > > > are from your neighbors if there's only you, or just your > > > immediate family. > > > bboyminn: Actually, on this point, I agree with you. The books show a wizard world that, in terms of living, keeps itself separated from the muggle world, and more to the point, separated from /itself/ in the muggle world. In otherwords, in this case, birds of a feather, make a point of not flocking together whenever they are in the vicinity of muggles. This is a clear and conscious choice that overrides human nature. And you are right, it's easy to overlook one crazy lady living in the neighborhood, but if 6 crazy ladies move in next door to each other, that's a little more difficult to overlook. > Betsy Hp: > > Or, if they're a bit braver, they can venture out into town or > amongst their neighbors and impress the local beauties with their > ability to do card tricks. Or, (to harken back to the very > beginning of this thread ) a young pure-blood witch could venture > out into her local town, fall for a Muggle boy and end up marrying > him. Of course, this begs the question of how a mixed-marriage like > that is handled. Seamus, for example, talks about a wizard cousin > of his. Does he hang with his Muggle cousins at all? Would his > father's brothers or sisters or parents, etc., know about Seamus's > and his mother's little secret? > > Betsy Hp bboyminn: Well, I can see Fred and George trying to 'woo' the local beauties with card tricks, but few other wizards. If we take the case of Merope Gaunt. She simply observed Mr. Riddle passing by, and was attracted to him. I suspect that she knew who he was and in her mind fantasized about what a grand and rich, and Gaunt-free life he must live. Eventually those fanatsies grew into obssessions. I think in most cases, these things can happen simply. A wizard looks out his front window and see the comely daughter of one of the neighbors and becomes attracted to her. So at some point, he makes a little more effort to get himself noticed. Eventually, they say 'Hi', they talk, he invites her to a local 'low stress' muggle cafe for lunch. Things progress, they fall in love. At some point, they have to have 'The Talk'; no not the sex talk, the wizard/magic talk. If things are still on track after that, then the relationship has a chance. I really don't see much of a 'dating scene' in the mixed magic/muggle world. I suspect encounters happen in a less planned, very low-key, and random way. You're out of milk, and my chance you risk a trip the the corner store, you bump into someone attactive, you talk, etc..., etc..., THE TALK, wedding bells. Rambling now- All that said, and acknowledging that the books, at this point in time, are against me. I'm not completely ready to abandon my 'flock of birds' idea. As I said, I can envision small isolated groups of wizards descretely banding together to form neighborhoods. I confess this comes from my own fan fiction which takes place in roughly 2014 to 2020. I think it started with the issue of Grimmauld Place. The Black family tapestry shows 700 years of family members. That makes them a very old family, and I suspect their house has been where it is for a LONG TIME. But we see the neighborhood is rundown, but at the same time, it's a reasonable walk from a main subway station. In a sense, it's prime real estate (as is nearly all real estate in London), and its rundown shabby appearance makes it a prime location for redevelopment. So, what happens to Grimmauld Place if muggle redevelopers come in and turn Grimmauld Square into up-scale housing? Or plow everything down and put up a shopping complex? It happened in Docklands, which, as far as I know, actually was just what its name implies 'dock lands'. Now it is up-scale condo's, office space, and shops. So, again where does that leave Grimmauld Place? This is a valid dilemma in the books. Other wizard houses could just be sold back to muggles. But I get the sense that 12 Grimmauld Place is very old, and as Sirius said, his father made sure the house had every known muggle protection placed on it. I suspect that even without the 'Secret Keeper' charm, muggles would have a very difficult time finding number 12, even if they lived in number 13. My solution was for the very rich Weasley Brothers, to become the redevelopers themselves, and sell the resulting housing to wizards and wizard-aware muggles. Thus they create a wizard-aware (very small) neighborhood, and that protects 12 Grimmauld Place. You may ask why you would even care about my fan fiction, but it does present one of many real world problems that will surely remain unsolved by the end of the series. I mean this is prime centrally located London real estate, there is bound to be a problem sooner or later. Another real world problem, as an example, would be the taxman. 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. I mean really, enquiring minds want to know. Anyway Betsy, I think the books very much support your ideas about the wizard world. I wasn't arguing with you so much as trying to add some perspective. Steve/bboyminn From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Oct 30 07:23:59 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:23:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Has Professor Trelawney been kidnapped? In-Reply-To: <20051028190728.59642.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051028190728.59642.qmail@web34909.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48810834.20051030002359@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142312 Friday, October 28, 2005, 12:07:28 PM, M. Thitathan wrote: MT> I think the vital info is that LV can't send somebody else MT> to kill Harry. That he must kill Harry MT> himself (or be killed by Harry) in order to be successful. LV seems determined, at least from the Graveyard on, to kill Harry himself anyway, if only to prove to the DE's that he's superior to this mere boy. (I personally think poor old Barty, Jr. would have gotten a nasty shock had he managed to kill Harry himself and then raced back to be "rewarded" by his Lord and Master.) I think what LV is hoping for is something really juicy, like assurance that once he destroys Harry, the one-way street to Immortality will be clear, which indeed is implied by the Prophecy, at least in my interpretation. -- Dave From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 11:53:15 2005 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:53:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why can't Harry? WAS Re: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0510300353h2d58d56qc0ff78b5c25ecc44@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142313 Valky wrote: >snip< > The one thing I have not resolved to the point, I think, is why Harry > cannot live while Voldemort survives. > > 1. Voldemort survives as long as Horcrux Harry lives, hence Harry > cannot live because he remains the marked man forever hunted by Voldemort.< There's a non-Horcrux version, too: Harry cannot live because Voldemort believes he must kill Harry; therefore, Voldemort will continue to hunt him down until the final confrontation occurs. And there's a Horcrux version of the non-Horcrux version: Harry is a Horcrux, but Voldemort did not intend to make him into one, i.e., he only intended to use the soul fragment torn as a result of Harry's death to make one, or he intended to make a Horcrux of Harry's dead body and believes he has failed. (Yes, I know this would require that the first part of the Horcrux spell be cast as part of the AK, but there's no canon to refute that.) So, Voldemort is hunting Harry down because of the Prophecy, but without knowledge of Horcrux!Harry. I actually think Unknown!Harrycrux is the most likely Harrycrux scenario, because if Voldemort were aware of Harrycrux then he's attempting to kill his own soul piece; and while it's not out of the realm of possibility -- Dumbledore pointed out the risks of using a horcrux that can think and move for himself, even if it's not an enemy -- I think Voldemort's overconfidence would come into play in that case. But even if Voldemort knows what he's attempting to destroy, *Harry* does not know it and we the readers don't know it. Geoff wrote: "If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. He could make the choice of running away and hiding; the alternative is to face Voldemort knowing that he will go down with him. And that places him on a hiding to nothing. He has got no real choice in that eventuality." Debbie: I guess I don't see how Harry has a great deal of choice as it is. Voldemort is hunting him down. He has always only had one choice: to decide whether to run and hide (and be dragged into the arena to face the battle) or to walk into the arena with his "head held high". It's the choice he has now, but aside from the specific information about horcruxes that allows Harry to develop a plan for *how* to enter the arena, it's really no different from the choice he had in GoF. Harry *was* dragged to the arena (the graveyard) to face a battle to the death, but still he held his head high. From ch. 34: "[H]e was going to die, and there was nothing he could do about it . . . but he wasn't going to play along. He wasn't going to obey Voldemort . . . he wasn't going to beg . . . " and "He was not going to die crouching here like a child playing hide-and-seek; he was not going to die kneeling at Voldemort's feet . . . he was going to die upright like his father, and he was going to die trying to defend himself, even if no defense was possible . . . " Since Harry's already made his choice, I don't know how a Harrycrux would restrict his choice in Book 7. I am attracted to Horcrux!Harry theories in part because I've always thought it fairly likely that Harry would be called upon to sacrifice himself. But I've never envisioned that he would have time to brood over his supposed lack of choice; it would be a sudden realization of the nature of his task. My scenario is this: The Harrycrux would not be discovered until the "final" confrontation, in which Voldemort's body would be destroyed (not necessarily by Harry) but Vapormort would escape. Harry would then have two choices: (i) let Vapormort escape, returning to the state of affairs that existed during Harry's childhood, or (ii) sacrifice himself, which would release Voldemort's soul to the next great adventure. And by sacrifice, I don't think Harry would kill himself; rather, he would allow himself to be AK'd by some ready and willing DE. And there's always the possibility that Harry's magical protections would allow the Harrycrux to be destroyed without killing him. Either way, there's plenty of Bang to go around. 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. Eileen: Debbie: There's also the Harry-Voldy connection, which presents the possibility that either could control the other, as Dumbledore himself suggests in OOP ch. 37 (The Lost Prophecy). Voldemort hasn't been exploiting it lately but as long as he can manipulate Harry's thoughts, the connection arguably prevents either from being complete. And then there's the fact that Harry is now hunting down the means of destroying Voldemort, and he expects to have to kill him. So neither feels he can live while the other survives (though Harry did a pretty good job of it over the last year). Debbie who has now used up her extra hour and must go change the clocks [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 30 00:58:46 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:58:46 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142314 Valky: > The battle scenes in the D.O.M. are scattered with notes of voices and > footsteps from ambiguous sources. When Luna relates the battle in the > room of planets she tells that she accidentally broke Ginny's ankle on > what appears to be her first spell, and Ron was hit with something > that made him 'go all funny'. Somehow, all three survived and escaped > four DE's attacking them but Luna was the only one capable of > fighting, this is a suspicious set of circumstances, lending to a > theory that they may have had help from an undisclosed source. [snip] > I am guessing that the trio trace the locket to Sirius and it leads to > them arriving at the D.O.M on that night. The prescence of the trio in > the D.O.M working behind the scenes to protect the D.A. would explain > some gaps in the account of the battle. > Lucianam: This is so intriguing I had to come back to this thread! I've been re-reading the D.O.M. battle again and it's amazing, really amazing how the craziest possibilities spring to mind, if you read the sequence of actions very carefully. I say crazy possibilities because, well, I saw possible evidence for Hermione and/or Tonks being killed, for example! And the annoying thing is you *can* pull off these crazy theories because stuff like Time-Travelling and Metamorpgamagus-izing (wow) and Polyjuice Potion and whatnot work as loopholes. You can get practically get away with murder! For example: In message #142255 I went on about how Tonks could have been killed by a 'jet of green light' in the Death Room. And well, she could have! How would one wriggle out of that tight hole, seeing that Tonks has been seen walking and talking since? See loopholes above. I personally favor the Metamorphamagus option, as a homage to Tonks. Hermione could have died in the D.O.M. battle; when Harry and Neville, carrying her, reach the circular room, her 'fiery crosses' have faded. Isn'it a bit creepy? It reminded me of Harry's Body-Bind being lifted (in HBP) when Dumbeledore was AK'ed. How crazy would it be, just throw TT in and Hermione-from-the-future could die, with all those curse flying around... Basically if the TT scenario really takes us back to D.O.M., I wouldn't bet money on ANYTHING being impossible. The possibilities are infinite!! Lucianam, now really afraid to ever re-read the D.O.M battle scene again! From JLen1777 at aol.com Sun Oct 30 05:18:44 2005 From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:18:44 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Response to Catlady on Snape etc Message-ID: <1c5.33e73570.3095b1b4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142315 Potioncat: << 4. Snape's tiny sitting room is lined with leather bound books and contains a threadbare sofa, an old armchair and a rickety table. It had the "feeling of a dark, padded cell." A padded cell is used for someone who needs protection from himself. What does this room, or the house and neighborhood, tell us about Snape? Do you think this is his usual home away from Hogwarts? >> Catlady responded: < I never thought about the "padded cell" description before! My emotional reaction to walls covered with shelves of leatherbound books, coupled with my emotional reaction to shabby but overstuffed furniture, had me feeling more like he was inside a jewelry box (also padded, often in quilted velvet or satin, for protection and cherishing of the valuable contents). Thus, I assumed it was his usual hide-out when compelled to leave Hogwarts for summer holiday.> Jaimee: I believe the look of Snape's home at Spinner's End is quite deliberate. This is all pure speculation on my part, but the lack of warmth goes along with his potions classroom, and carries to his DADA classroom as well. I think his demeanor and chosen surroundings are what allow him to be so good at Occlumency. Harry was abysmal in his Occlumency lessons because he was not able to 'bottle' his emotions the way Snape was, and when Harry 'accidentally' views a memory of Snape's that he never intended Harry to see, he refuses to give him lessons any longer because he feels it jeopardizes his ability to be effective in Occlumency. As I said, this is all my opinion, and I see problems with it myself. For instance, Snape seems to relish what makes him angry in order to block other emotions, which in turn seems to make him a better candidate for Occlumency than Harry, yet when Harry invaded this very personal memory, he refuses any further lessons. Perhaps the anger was too close to his true emotions, whereas normally its a 'cover'? I don't know...Anyone else have ideas on this? I wrote: << this truly seemed like Snape was pleased that Naracissa was there to see him. I have seen him be catty to Harry, Hermione, Bellatrix, any number of people; respectful toward Dumbledore; even shown favoritism to Draco; but never truly pleased to see anyone. >> Catlady responded: Jaimee: I see your point here, and what I wrote was probably just my own interpretation of events. In all honesty, his response to seeing Narcissa does not really show his tone of voice or facial expression either, but it was a sense I got from it as genuine. With McGonagall, I do not think it was insincere, merely an 'appropriate' reaction to have when a colleague returns. Then again, Snape isn't known for his 'appropriate' reactions. Eileen Nicholson: << Voldemort seems fairly one-dimensional now - did he ever have a conscience >> Catlady responded: I quite agree that he never showed anything other than Antisocial Behavior. But in the way DD tries to guide Harry to a more Existential approach about the prophecy and his choices, freedom, and responsibility, this seems to take away any of those options for Voldemort. What do you or others think? 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? Jaimee [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From JLen1777 at aol.com Sun Oct 30 07:25:27 2005 From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:25:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Cave and RAB...formerly: Re: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? Message-ID: <5b.752291a0.3095cf67@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142316 Jen (snipped): >Although this brings up something curious. Dumbledore never exactly said that the green goo was a poison, instead saying it wouldn't kill the drinker right away. It's conceivable to me this was a typically vague Dumbledore statement because he wasn't certain of the mechanism, but the real poison in the cave was in the lake. Voldemort ensured the death of the drinker not via the green goo, but because that drink would cause unbearable thirstiness and lead to drinking the lake water, which *was* a poison (thus not being killed right away until thirst overcomes you).< Jaimee: I agree it was the substance in the lake that was the poison. I think it may have even been Draught of Living Death (sorry if this has been discussed and I am unaware). I just believe it must be significant because the first Potions class they have at Hogwarts the first year with Snape, it is mentioned, and then again it is mentioned in the first Potions class with Slughorn. I also think it would be an intersting substance for the Inferi to be encased in. I believe HBP indicates The Draught of Living Death is supposed to be clear when it is finished: "According to the book, he had to stir counterclockwise until the potion turned clear as water." (American Version P. 190) I don't know... this could be completely wacky, or it may have been mentioned previously, but it seems like a possibility to me. The idea of it being Sirius' mother or father is interesting to me. I have also wondered if the person who took the real Horcrux could have been Neville's mom. I have not noticed, do the books ever give her maiden name? I know her name is Alice, which could be the middle initial of RAB. I just thought that Neville and his parents may play an important role in the last book, and it might be interesting if she were RAB... Jaimee [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ornawn at 013.net Sun Oct 30 08:32:51 2005 From: ornawn at 013.net (ornadv) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:32:51 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142317 >Jen wrote: >Don't get me wrong here, I'd love to know how RAB knew about and >located the horcrux when it took Dumbledore 5 years to figure out >this information, research it, track down memories and finally >locate the ring and the cave. Orna: 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. (I don't vision Voldermort too trusting towards his DE, but it could be something like he gave Lucius the Riddle-diary - vague instructions, without revealing fully, it was a horcrux. After all, he does mention in the GOF, that the DE were supposed to know, he had taken steps to conquer death). And RAB, instead of concealing it there, replaced it with the fake one, - so he didn't have to know by himself, how to find the place, brew potions etc. It would explain his being killed immediately, and perhaps even by Voldermort personally. Of course, I don't know, who RAB is, so it can be anybody, but for some reason I like Regulus, and it would be nice to be him... Orna From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Oct 30 12:47:25 2005 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:47:25 -0000 Subject: Wizards in a Muggle World (was:Spinner's End as home...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142318 bboyminn: > This is a valid dilemma in the books. Other wizard houses could just > be sold back to muggles. But I get the sense that 12 Grimmauld Place > is very old, and as Sirius said, his father made sure the house had > every known muggle protection placed on it. I suspect that even > without the 'Secret Keeper' charm, muggles would have a very difficult > time finding number 12, even if they lived in number 13. > > My solution was for the very rich Weasley Brothers, to become the > redevelopers themselves, and sell the resulting housing to wizards and > wizard-aware muggles. Thus they create a wizard-aware (very small) > neighborhood, and that protects 12 Grimmauld Place. Redevelopment is one option, but Urban Renewal is another. As the street deteriorates, the local authorities would probably start casting an eye toward redevelopment, as you suggest. But they may also start a campaign to entice whatever Yuppies are called today (or in your future scenario) to come in and refurbish these 'fine old historical houses'. That's been a strategy in several large cities, and it removes the need for the local government to pay for it. If WW folk, and magic-aware Muggles were to buy in on that scheme, the area could become a WW oasis in a sea of Muggles without changing a thing. By magic, they could clean up, repair, and restore the old houses to their former glory. They might even be able to apply for historical status for the street. Since I envision this as a street with only one access and no outlet, they could even place mild Muggle- repelling charms (excepting the magic-friendly Muggles in residence) on the access intersection. No one would need to pass through anyway, since there's no outlet for passing through. In fact, maybe that's why the first Blacks chose that particular area. No through traffic, meaning fewer Muggles besides their upscale neighbors soiling the view from their windows. With Harry inheriting 12GP from Sirius, we might see more of it in book 7. I doubt if we'll see any urban renewal program, whatever form it takes. I think JKR is ignoring things like the tax man, since that's unpleasant, and not a part of the story. But it would be funny to find the twins suddenly Harry's next door neighbors as the first wave of a WW takeover of the area. And, a form of comeuppance against the attitudes displayed particularily by Mrs Black, as the twins are certainly Muggle-friendly in some ways, and one might even fancy a certain Muggle girl, which may lead to marriage. Ceridwen. From muellem at bc.edu Sun Oct 30 13:15:44 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:15:44 -0000 Subject: Narcissa/Gobstones/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > > > Carol wrote in > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142057 : > > > > << On a side note, I think that Narcissa's parents named their last > > child after a flower, breaking with the family tradition of using > > stars or constellations, because with her blue eyes and golden hair, > > she didn't look like a Black. >> > >Catlady: > > Good idea, maybe better than mine that maybe the wizarding folk > > have named some star 'Narcissa', so that she *is* named after a star > > > Potioncat: > The real reason, IIRC, is that JKR had set on the name and decided to > keep it, even though it broke it the pattern. I think there is a star > named for the male Narcissus, but I couldn't prove it.> but there are plants called Narcissus, which are also known as *stars*: Texas Star" jonquil (Narcissus x intermedius),Long-Cupped Narcissus(Large-Cupped Daffodil 'Gigantic Star'). But Cissy's name, I believe, describes her nicely. I do believe her to be self-absorbed. > > > Potioncat wrote in > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142089 : > > > > << I think Eileen gets "No respect" for being President of the > > Gobstones Club. (snip) we see her in a leadership role on a > > recreational team that is competitive enough to play against other > > schools. >> > > > > What I've wondered since first reading that Daily Prophet caption is > > WHAT other schools does the Hogwarts Gobstones Club play against? > > Beauxbatons and Durmstrang? > > Potioncat: > That would be my guess. But I wonder, why did she look so sullen? Was > the Hogwarts team losing? Was the young Beauxbatons wizard kissing > the young Drumstrang witch? > > This is why I feel very bad for Eileen, because I can relate to that whole *sullen* face look. When I am not smiling or talking(ie my face is at rest ), my face goes to its natural state - which other people see as mad or sullen. I am not, that is just the way my face settles. I don't go around with a stupid grin on my face 24x7, so I would like to believe Eileen has the same problem. She isn't angry or sullen about anything, that is just the way her face settles - also, she could be like me in another respect - I hate having my picture taken. That could also explain her *look*. Also, speaking of Eileen, we know that she probably went to Hogwarts around the same time as Riddle. Instead of being a follower or someone who agreed with Riddle(we know she didn't, because she did marry a Muggle), perhaps the reason why Snape knew so many dark hexes & curses and was into the dark arts was because of self-preservation? From LV - Eileen would have known what Riddle was like, first-hand, and taught her son magics that would provide him with some sort of defense against LV. I guess it would be like fighting fire with fire, using dark arts to counter dark arts. Also, Snape would know what to expect from LV. However, this does not explain Snape joining LV for a brief period of time - unless there was something more to that. but that was just a thought I had on why Snape might know so much about Dark Arts - why would Eileen teach him all those things? If in fact, she did. Snape could have just been a very smart little boy who found out about these curses by himself. colebiancardi (who has always thought Eileen was misunderstood) > > > > From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 30 15:54:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:54:56 -0000 Subject: Why can't Harry? WAS Re: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0510300353h2d58d56qc0ff78b5c25ecc44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142321 Elfundeb wrote: >snipping a good summary of Harrycrux ideas< > And by sacrifice, I > don't think Harry would kill himself; rather, he would allow himself to be > AK'd by some ready and willing DE. Potioncat: On a lightening struck tower? By a DE we all know too well--or not well enough? Now that would be bangy ironic! This has a lot of potential! 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? :-) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 30 18:02:07 2005 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 30 Oct 2005 18:02:07 -0000 Subject: Reminder - Weekly Chat Message-ID: <1130695327.19.97320.m28@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142322 We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. Weekly Chat Date: Sunday, October 30, 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 Oct 30 18:46:21 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:46:21 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142323 >Betsy Hp: >Ahh, but we're talking about the WW here. You know, the place that >sent Sirius to Azkaban without fussing much about a trial? I >somehow think that if Snape showed up with Sirius's corpse in his >clutches Fudge would give out medals first and ask questions... >well, never. a_svirn: You know, I don't really think that the WW is so very dissimilar to the NON-WW in this respect. Different political situation call for different measures and politicians also differ in their approaches. It was Crouch Senior who sent Sirius to Azkaban without trial. He was also the one (in)famous for authorizing the unlimited use of the Unforgivables. Fudge was very careful not to resemble him in any way. Much as he was shocked by Sirius's break-out he never issued a shoot-to-kill order for his Aurors. He unleashed dementors instead, no doubt thinking it would make the whole thing look more Forgivable. So no, I don't think there would have been no reprisals for Snape. He wasn't even supposed to know how to cast an Unforgivable, and if he did it would sure make the Prophet headlines. And only think what would Rita Skeeter have made of this story! Especially since she had been present at the trials. Of course, if Snape had no other choice he would kill Sirius, BUT HE HAD! Why take an unnecessary risk then? >Betsy Hp: >But they think (or Sirius implied that any Death Eater would think) >that the double-crosser did another double-cross and lead Voldemort >to his doom. So to Bellatrix and those who think like her, >Pettigrew *is* a double-double-crosser. a_svirn: Well, to fathom the mind of Bellatrix and Co is even harder than that of a werewolf, of course, especially with an added impact of Azkaban, but on the other hand ? why should she think so? Pettigrew's part was to betray the secret and so he did. The rest was up to Voldemort. Now if she meant something else, something to do with the Longbottom's debacle >Betsy Hp: >Of course, there is Dumbledore. I doubt Snape could have pulled the >wool over his eyes as easily as Fudge's. (Though isn't that the >basic principle of the ESE!Snape argument? That Snape is an expert >when it comes to fooling Dumbledore?) a_svirn: Well, I don't think that he is ESE! if you mean by that that he's Lord Voldemort faithful follower. But even if he were it would still behoove him to tread warily around Dumbledore, and *not* to fire Unforgivables right, left and centre. > colebiancardi: >see, I think the MoM HAS ways to control the dementors - I mean >really >control them. Re: Umbridge, Fudge in your scene above. The >dementors >"work" for the MoM, not Hogwarts. So, I still think Snape would be >taking on a huge risk with all the dementors out there in the >forest(there are more than one or two - there is quite a few of >them). >Since Snape is not an employee of MoM, I doubt he can control them a_svirn: Now, that would be the most unfeasible arrangement imaginable. I doubt even Lord Voldemort would have wanted such unreliable allies. Besides, it's not true. They are vicious and indiscriminative when it comes to feeding on other's emotions but up until they switched their allegiances to Voldemort there was no danger of unauthorized kisses. Yes, they attacked Harry and Hermione but only because they were fighting on the side of their lawful prey. Neither on the train not at the match did they try to kiss anyone. The former was a routine check-up and on the match they simply wanted to have some fun, as Lupin explained. Unfortunately, it so happened that Harry was more susceptible to their influence than most, just like Ron is more susceptible to the wiles of the veela. The dementors, however, no more tried to kiss him or anyone than Fleur tried to seduce Ron. Dementors were stationed at the entrances of the school and in Hogsmead without a single Auror in sight and no one though to conceal Hogsmead weekends. Nor did Hogsmead's residents fear for their safety. (Well they did but on account of Black, not dementors). As for Umbridge, she didn't accompany them to Little Whining, did she? And yet, they did not roam all over Surrey hunting souls. They came specifically to Little Whining, specifically to Privet Drive and they didn't pay a visit to mark evances or mrs. figgs of the neighborhood on their way there. No they only sought to kiss Harry Potter and his cousin. I'd say they were very particular in their attentions! Dumbledore's objection was first and foremost ethical. He wasn't afraid of dementors, he as ? Arthur put it ? wasn't FOND of them and didn't want them anywhere near his students. Whereas the rest of the wizarding population ? Arthur included ? were quite prepared to put up with the Lesser Evil for the Greater Good. a_svirn From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Oct 30 18:57:55 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:57:55 -0000 Subject: Relationship between Snape and the Malfoys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142324 Julia: > I have been wondering about > the relationship between Snape and the Malfoys and what the other > people in the group really think about it. > > From the favoritism of Draco in school, to the fast movement Snape > does at the end of GOF when Lucius' name is mentioned, to the UV - I > am not sure how it all fits together. [...] > The way Snape responds to Narcissa in Chapter 2 - is that genuine > affection or part of a long time act to get and stay on the Malfoys' > good side? I've always thought of the relationship between Snape and Lucius Malfoy as that of client and patron. In fact, my first thought reading about the sitting room in the house on Spinner's End was that many of those black and brown leather bound volumes must have been bought with Snape's sportula. Snape renders his obsequium by favoring Malfoy's son. His behavior towards the eponymous Narcissa is consistant with what he would show towards the wife of his patron. Of course they may both call it friendship. I'm sure Lucius Malfoy has many he calls "friends" who are more in the nature of followers whose loyalty is purchased with Malfoy gold. On Snape's side, the Malfoy's may provide the only social invitations Snape receives. They may be the closest thing to "friends" that he has. This is all what I imagined, and I assumed the relationship went back to the time of Voldemort's first rise to power and Snape's early Death Eater days. When I really think about it, though, there is not a lot of cannon support for any of it. They are never shown together, I believe, in the books. There is the fact that Snape hung out with Bellatrix and Rudolphus, so he and Malfoy must have been known to each other, but nothing conclusive to show they knew each other well. There is Draco in CoS -------------------------------- "Yeah, right," said Malfoy, smirking. I expect you'd have Father's vote, sir, if you wanted to apply for the job--I'll tell Father you're the best teacher here, sir--" (Scholastic pbk., p. 267) -------------------------------- Then Umbridge three years later. -------------------------------- "Lucius Malfoy always speaks so highly of you." (OotP Scholastic pbk, p. 745) -------------------------------- Narcissa at Spinner's End. -------------------------------- "Draco's favorite teacher...You are Lucius's old friend..." -------------------------------- So maybe Snape only began to cultivate the Malfoys when he found their son in his class. Either because he was still spying for Dumbledore or because Lucius Malfoy is rich and influential. Probably both--Snape's motives are always mixed, IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 19:36:27 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:36:27 -0000 Subject: Relationship between Snape and the Malfoys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142325 houyhnhnm102: > I've always thought of the relationship between Snape and Lucius Malfoy as that of client and patron. In fact, my first thought reading about the sitting room in the house on Spinner's End was that many of those black and brown leather bound volumes must have been bought with Snape's sportula. Snape renders his obsequium by favoring Malfoy's son. His behavior towards the eponymous Narcissa is consistant with what he would show towards the wife of his patron. > a_svirn: You mean, Lucius's sportula? Besides, Snape must have lived for hundred years at the very least to be able to assemble such an impressive library on the sportula money. Also I don't think that patron's wives customary kneel before their husbands' clients. And in what way is Narcissa eponymous? Are their any brooms or shampoos named after her? From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Oct 30 19:44:20 2005 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:44:20 -0000 Subject: MsgPatronus/ChapterQuestions/Village/Narcissa/Gobstones/Draco/PurpleCurse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142326 houyhnhnm wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142013 : > > No canon support whatsoever except for the fact that > > patroni are bright and silvery, but I imagine a message > > being incorporated into the happy thought that produces > > the patronus. I imagine when a patronus is intercepted > > it is drawn into the wand of the Witch or Wizard who > > receives it, and then put into the head like a thought > > being retrieved from a pensieve. Catlady (Rita Prince Winston): > Oh, no, how embarrassing! For example, if at one time > Hermione's happy thought was kissing Viktor, she would > probably be embarrassed for anyone to know, and especially > *un*happy for Ron to know, which would make a problem if > she had to send a message to Ron. houyhnhnm: But surely the witch or wizard sending a messenger Patronus could choose a memory suitable for the recipient(s). In the absence of Dementors, it wouldn't require an ecstatically happy memory, or one that was deeply personal or revealing, for those already already adept at casting the Patronus charm. It *would* make for a certain degree of transparency among those using such a means of communication, though, and I was thinking maybe this is the reason that the use of Patroni is considered Light Magic which can't be tampered with by the dark side. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 20:23:30 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:23:30 -0000 Subject: Why can't Harry? - Horcrux!Harry and other great mysteries. In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0510300353h2d58d56qc0ff78b5c25ecc44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > ...edited... > ... And there's a Horcrux version of the non-Horcrux version: > Harry is a Horcrux, but Voldemort did not intend to make him > into one, i.e., he only intended to use the soul fragment torn > as a result of Harry's death to make one, or he intended to make > a Horcrux of Harry's dead body and believes he has failed. ... > So, Voldemort is hunting Harry down because of the Prophecy, but > without knowledge of Horcrux!Harry. bboyminn: I have some real problems with Harry-the-Horcrux. Though, do keep reading because I am intrigued by Elfundeb's suggestions. The main problem is that while Dumdledore knows Harry has a 'bit' of Voldemort in him, the idea that that 'bit' is a bit of Voldemort's soul doesn't seem to have occurred to him; at least not in anyway that has been revealed to us. In fact, when Dumbledore and Harry are discussing to Horcruxes, the Prophecy, and Voldemort near the end of HBP, Dumbledore makes a distinction between Voldemort's soul and Voldemort's power. In pointing out that Voldemort has diminished himself by breaking up his soul, Dumbledore reminds Harry that while V's soul is diminished, he is as magically powerful as ever. In a sense, I attribute magical power to 'earthly essense'. Using reincarnation as an illustration, magical power is an aspect of the body, it's an aspect of this current physical incarnation. The spirit or soul exist across many incarnations; magical and otherwise. So, the presence of some of Voldie's magical power in Harry should not be considered an indication of the presence of Voldemort's soul. Still, the idea is a powerful one, and has a variety of storyline possibilities. Though, I can't imagine why Voldemort would ever consider intensionally making a Horcrux out of Harry's dead body. The new Horcrux 'body' must be something that will endure. It must be something that will last so that it can contain the soul piece safely. If Harry's body lies rotting in the grave or is cremated, that doesn't bode will for the long lasting properties of the Horcrux. That brings us to the other problem I have, how could a bit of Voldemort's soul possible get into Harry? I'm not buying speculation that Voldemort made the Horcrux preperations in advance because I can see no reason for it. He has plenty of time to make the Horcrux later. While people can speculate possibilities in this area, I honestly find most of them farfetched. 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 hit him with a Stunning Curse and knock him off the top of a tower, or hit him with a spell that pushes Voldie through the Arched Veil of Death, or some other indirect means. But if Harry flat out kills Voldie, doesn't he become essentially the thing he is fighting against? > Eldundeb: > > I actually think Unknown!Harrycrux is the most likely Harrycrux > scenario, because if Voldemort were aware of Harrycrux then he's > attempting to kill his own soul piece; ... > > Geoff wrote: > > "If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have to > die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. ... > > Debbie: > ...edited.. > > Since Harry's already made his choice, I don't know how a > Harrycrux would restrict his choice in Book 7. > > I am attracted to Horcrux!Harry theories in part because I've > always thoughtit fairly likely that Harry would be called upon > to sacrifice himself. But I've never envisioned that he would > have time to brood over his supposed lack of choice; it would > be a sudden realization of the nature of his task. > > My scenario is this: The Harrycrux would not be discovered > until the "final" confrontation, in which Voldemort's body > would be destroyed ... but Vapormort would escape. Harry would > then have two choices: (i) let Vapormort escape, ... or (ii) > sacrifice himself, which would release Voldemort's soul to the > next great adventure. > ...edited... > > Debbie bboyminn: As difficult as it is for me to accept any logical Harry!Horcrux scenarios, let's try this one on for size. Oh so many years ago when Voldemort tried to kill Harry and the curse rebounded on him and ripped him from his body, several of Voldemort's many home-soul-pieces were released into the cosmos. In that brief moment of being ripped from their home-body the soul-pieces desprerately searched for a new home before joining Vapormort. In that brief instant, one of many soul-pieces grabbed the nearest living body it could find and that body was Harry's. Perhaps, for one tiny micro-fraction of a second, Harry was even dead, but in the instant that Voldemort's still vital soul-piece entered Harry, and before Harry's own soul could 'give up the ghost', Harry was re-animated; still very much alive. Now we have living-Harry with a ramdon Voldemort soul-piece in him. Again, I find it farfetched, but it does read nicely. Now I must diverge for a moment. In the past I put out one of my many wild speculations in which Harry would die by some definition in the final battle with Voldemort, but would be brought back to life. The idea was, in that brief moment of Harry's virtual death, Voldemort would be vulnerable to death. Notice any similarity between this scenario and the above Harry!Horcurx scenario? Of course, the most recent book has somewhat shot down my original speculation, but that's OK, I'm adaptable; so now I shall adapt. First, let's consider what might happen if Voldemort tries to AK one of his own soul-pieces. I can't help wonder if that doesn't constitute 'special circumstances'. So, here is what I propose. Before the final battle, Harry /thinks/ he has eliminated all the Horcruxes. He then confronts Voldemort, Voldemort AK's Harry, but do to a variety of special circumstances the AK rebounds on him. In that micro-fraction of time between when the curse is cast and when the rebound strikes Voldemort, the curse kills Harry and thereby releases that last and final bit of Voldemort's soul. Now Voldemort is completely mortal, and the rebounding curse kills Voldemort once and for all. Now again, we have the rearing of special circumstances. In a sense, Voldemort, in attempting to kill Harry, is actually trying to kill himself. His soul resides in Harry; and in a sense, killing someone merely releases their soul to the 'great beyond'. But, unknown to Voldemort, he is trying to /release/ TWO SOULS to the great beyond, an extremely unusual circumstance. Even more unusual is that one of the souls he is trying to release is his own. VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES INDEED. So, short version; Harry is killed releasing Voldemort last remote soul-piece, the rebounding curse kills Voldemort once and for all, a great wailing and gnashing of teeth as the world morns the death of a hero (that would be Harry). Then suddenly with a great gasp of air, Harry sit up and say, "What happen?" ...trumpets blare, confetti and streamers, the world celebrates, their great hero has risen from the dead. So, it ends as it began. VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES INDEED. HEY! IT COULD HAPPEN! Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From muellem at bc.edu Sun Oct 30 21:51:45 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:51:45 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142328 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > colebiancardi: > > >see, I think the MoM HAS ways to control the dementors - I mean > >really > >control them. Re: Umbridge, Fudge in your scene above. The > >dementors > >"work" for the MoM, not Hogwarts. So, I still think Snape would be > >taking on a huge risk with all the dementors out there in the > >forest(there are more than one or two - there is quite a few of > >them). > >Since Snape is not an employee of MoM, I doubt he can control them > > > a_svirn: > > Now, that would be the most unfeasible arrangement imaginable. I > doubt even Lord Voldemort would have wanted such unreliable allies. > Besides, it's not true. They are vicious and indiscriminative when > it comes to feeding on other's emotions but up until they switched > their allegiances to Voldemort there was no danger of unauthorized > kisses. Yes, they attacked Harry and Hermione but only because they > were fighting on the side of their lawful prey. Neither on the train > not at the match did they try to kiss anyone. The former was a > routine check-up and on the match they simply wanted to have some > fun, as Lupin explained. Unfortunately, it so happened that Harry > was more susceptible to their influence than most, just like Ron is > more susceptible to the wiles of the veela. The dementors, however, > no more tried to kiss him or anyone than Fleur tried to seduce Ron. > > Dementors were stationed at the entrances of the school and in > Hogsmead without a single Auror in sight and no one though to > conceal Hogsmead weekends. Nor did Hogsmead's residents fear for > their safety. (Well they did but on account of Black, not > dementors). As for Umbridge, she didn't accompany them to Little > Whining, did she? And yet, they did not roam all over Surrey hunting > souls. They came specifically to Little Whining, specifically to > Privet Drive and they didn't pay a visit to mark evances or mrs. > figgs of the neighborhood on their way there. No they only sought to > kiss Harry Potter and his cousin. I'd say they were very particular > in their attentions! > > Dumbledore's objection was first and foremost ethical. He wasn't > afraid of dementors, he as ? Arthur put it ? wasn't FOND of them and > didn't want them anywhere near his students. Whereas the rest of the > wizarding population ? Arthur included ? were quite prepared to put > up with the Lesser Evil for the Greater Good. > > a_svirn colebiancardi: I don't see how this is "unfeasible arrangement imaginable". You wouldn't want anyone being able to control the dementors, would you? And DD & Lupin didn't control the dementors, they drove them off with a patronus. And it wasn't a bit of fun on the Quidditch match. Lupin took it quite seriously and didn't state that at all: p188 PoA Am.HardCover: "They're getting hungry" said Lupin coolly, shutting his briefcase with a snap. "Dumbledore won't let them into the school, so their supply of human prey has dried up...I don't think they could resist the large crowd around the Quidditch field. All that excitement....emotions running high...it was their idea of a feast." later on, he explains(same page) "Dementors are supposed to drain a wizard of his powers if he is left with them too long..." and if there are too many of them (same page) "There are - certain defenses one can use," said Lupin. "But there was only one dementor on the train. The more there are, the more difficult it becomes to resist" I don't believe the dementor's were doing a routine check on the train, either. Lupin went to talk to the driver, and McGonagall & Pomfrey were both quite upset at dementors being set upon the school. The danger is there. The Kiss is the last weapon they have, and they do that to those they wish to destroy. We don't know that they wouldn't have kissed Harry, as they were fought back by Lupin and then Dumbledore. And in the scene by the lake, where Harry & Sirius were trapped by the dementors, seemed like the dementors weren't just interested in sucking the soul out of Sirius - they wanted Harry as well: p. 384 "The nearest dementor seemed to be considering him. Then it raised both of its rotting hands - and lower its hood.... But a pair of strong, clammy hands suddenly attached themselves around Harry's nexk. They were forcing his face upward...He could feel its breath...It was going to get rid of him first...He could feel its putrid breath." sounds like a kiss in that scene, doesn't it? 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, and in HBP, we find out the dementors have switched sides, because Voldy is back - and Voldemort probably appeals to the dementor's evil nature to begin with. Voldemort probably thrives on chaos - not in his own circle, of course - but outside of it. If the dementors go around & suck all the souls out of any wizard that opposes him, I don't think LV would think that unreliable. The scene in GoF with Fudge and the dementor sucking the soul of of Junior is simple. Fudge is the head of the MoM - he still has control over them - the lone dementor, unlike the many that were in the forest in PoA, was easily controlled by Fudge. And the scene with the dementors in OotP, they were sent out by Umbridge - you made my case for me. She ordered them to go and get Harry, but they were willing to take his cousin along for the ride as well. She stated that something had to be done about Harry, not his cousin. His cousin was just an accidental bystander. Since she wasn't there, the dementors seem to have no problem getting someone else if they are close to their target. No, I think that bringing a person to a bunch of dementors to be kissed without someone from the MoM is a dangerous & risky proposition. I never once believed that Snape would do that on his own, regardless if I thought he was evil or not. He would be risking his own life as well. In the scene with Harry & Sirius, the dementors were going to kiss Harry first, not Sirius. What type of protection could Snape have had? We know that there are defensive measures that a wizard can use to fight off dementors, but we also know that the dementors did take orders from the MoM - something that we do not see Dumbledore, Harry, Lupin, and all the other wizards at Hogwarts use - they just use the defensive means. colebiancardi (wondering how you thought that Lupin was telling Harry the dementors were having fun at the Quidditch match?) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 23:00:11 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:00:11 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142329 >colebiancardi: >I don't see how this is "unfeasible arrangement imaginable". You >wouldn't want anyone being able to control the dementors, would you? a_svirn: I would, however, want to be sure that they wouldn't put too liberal a construction on my orders. For how long do you think Fudge would have kept his office had they indeed desouled anyone on the train? >colebiancardi: >I don't believe the dementor's were doing a routine check on the >train, either. Lupin went to talk to the driver, and McGonagall & >Pomfrey were both quite upset at dementors being set upon the school. a_svirn: Lupin went to send an owl to Hogwarts, informing them of the incident with Harry. And McGonagall and Pomfrey were upset for the same reason as Dumbledore. They didn't want dementors anywhere near students, because they feed on the human emotions and because the prolonged exposure to them drains wizards of their powers. And if it wasn't a check-up what *was* it then? >colebiancardi: >And in the scene by the lake, where Harry & Sirius were >trapped by the dementors, seemed like the dementors weren't just >interested in sucking the soul out of Sirius - they wanted Harry as >well a_svirn: I thought I had addressed that already but if you insist ? here is a quote from my previous post (Message 142323): >they are vicious and indiscriminative when > it comes to feeding on other's emotions but up until they switched > their allegiances to Voldemort there was no danger of unauthorized > kisses. Yes, they attacked Harry and Hermione but only because they > were fighting on the side of their lawful prey. Harry tried to repel them from Sirius, the criminal No.1 of the WW. He actually had the audacity to aid and abet the fugitive. Not surprising that they wanted him as well. >colebiancardi: >If the dementors go around & >suck all the souls out of any wizard that opposes him, I don't >think >LV would think that unreliable. a_svirn: No, but he would be very displeased indeed if their random soul- hunting happened to hinder his carefully laid plans. >colebiancardi: >And the scene with the >dementors in OotP, they were sent out by Umbridge - you made my >case >for me. She ordered them to go and get Harry, but they were willing >to take his cousin along for the ride as well. She stated that >something had to be done about Harry, not his cousin. His cousin >was >just an accidental bystander. Since she wasn't there, the dementors >seem to have no problem getting someone else if they are close to >their target. a_svirn: Do we actually know what her exact orders were? Until we do I rest my case. colebiancardi (wondering how you thought that Lupin was telling Harry the dementors were having fun at the Quidditch match?) a_svirn: "it was their idea of a feast." Of course `fun' is not a synonym of `feast' but not that far removed. From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sun Oct 30 13:13:54 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:13:54 -0000 Subject: Did Slughorn drink Felix Felicis? (was Re: The first-years conspiracy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142330 Lucianam wrote: > > I was wondering about Felix Felicis. Didn't Harry trust it just a > little too much? > > It was just a potion_ okay, it was supposed to make you extremely > lucky_ but still, just a potion. Which means, exactly, a certain > amount of liquid inside a bottle (more specifically a bottle Harry > kept inside a sock, in the bottom of his trunk). > > If the liquid inside the bottle inside the sock inside the trunk did > contain Felix Felicis, still it could be over its 'expiration date', > for example (Slughorn giving away valuable potions? Dodgy!). > > But what if the liquid was not Felix Felicis? > Now Lucianam again: Almost everyone (or was it everyone?) who replied didn't buy the 'Fake Felix' possibility. I'm not jumping off my own wagon, but allright, admitting Harry drunk real Felix. That chapter is still suspicious! (After the Burial) I don't 'trust' it. Ever since the first time I read it I thought something was going on there, under our very noses. I just don't believe 'everything went well'. Then what if Harry didn't drink any fake potion, but FF? How could things have gone wrong? When 'he was the luckiest person in Hogwarts'? Slughorn could have drunk it as well. Then of course he'd be just as lucky as Harry! And when Harry was trying to get the memory from Slughorn, thinking he had Felix's help, well, Slughorn also had that help, but AVOID giving the memory to Harry. Where obtaining the meory was concerned, all Harry really had was his own cunning. And how can we know he wasn't outsmarted by Slughorn? What makes me say Slughorn took Felix: I've been very suspicious of the Apparition test taking place in the same day as Aragog's burial, and of its day being announced long before. That figures in my other theory (above), too. But on with this new one: Slughorn already knew Harry was after his memory. He kept fleeing from Harry. Now, wouldn't it be reasonable he took some FF in the day [I] he thought Harry was taking his Apparition test [/I]? Just in case Harry had decided to break the rules and drink a little lucky potion to ensure he'd pass the test? When Harry enters Slughorn's class that day (the other kids having gone to Hogsmeade for the test), there are only three students. 'Too young to Apparate?' Slughorn asks. That suggests he didn't know Harry wasn't taking the test. But he (Slughorn) could have taken the potion already _ 'two tablespoons at breakfast...' Why isn't this crazy? Because Slughorn got really lucky that day, that's why. He made a lot of money! He met Harry after his meeting with prof. Sprout, and not only learned that valuable Acromantula venom could be obtained; in being invited to the funeral he also was given a plausible excuse to approach its body. There's more luck coming: Slughorn manages to extract the venom without Hagrid noticing. He finds out there's unicorn hair hanging from the ceiling, and Hagrid gives him a whole tail as a gift! And last but not least, Slughorn gets a very special piece of info. Something only Harry and Dumbledore had known until that moment: confirmation, from Harry's own mouth, that he is the Chosen One. Lucianam, still convinced the Foggy Memory is the real one and wondering who That Boy is!!! From willowybea at yahoo.ca Sun Oct 30 16:39:45 2005 From: willowybea at yahoo.ca (willowybea) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:39:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Brain Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142331 Willowybea: After rereading the entire series I have noticed a large number of references to Dumbledore's Brain both by DD himself and others in the WW world. This has me wondering if there could be any connection to the "Brain Room" at the Ministry of magic. What is the purpose of this room? Do exceptional wizards donate their brains to science? Is there a chance Harry may be able to access DD's knowledge/memories post mortem? Any thoughts? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 23:28:00 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:28:00 -0000 Subject: What will happen to The Order o t Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142332 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: > > Magda Grantwich wrote: > > (snipped) > > > Personally I think that the Order is now irrelevent. It played > > an active role in OOTP largely because the MoM was being > > difficult > > ... > > > > And with Dumbledore's death, the Order has lost any ability it > > had to make Voldemort and the DE's nervous. ... > > > Lucianam: > > Hmm. Yes, but the members of the OotP are still the grown-ups Harry > can trust. The idea of Harry coming of age can be overestimated. I > think a seventeen year old is pretty much a child; he still needs > the help of adults. > > I understand JKR's general idea of Harry going alone in his quest, > but I don't think it's practical and doubt she'll really carry it > on. Why would Harry not ask for help? ... > bboyminn: I'm with Lucianam on this one. It's true Harry always goes it alone, but only in the final battle. He has plenty of help from friends before getting to the final battle. I also agree that that task at hand is just too big for Harry. There is too much he doesn't know and far too much to do. True, the Order has been substantially diminished by the loss of Dumbledore. He, in a sense, was the guiding light. Dumbledore gave the group purpose, direction, and focus, and those are the very things they now lack to make them an effective organization. But they still represent resources for Harry. Each member bringing his own strength and talent to the mix. It's not so important that they are now members of the Order, but it is important that Harry knows them and trusts them. Also, too many people are again taking an all-or-nothing approach to Harry asking for help. Either he is absolutely silent, speaking to no one, or his is spilling his guts, telling everything he knows to anyone who will listen; please, let's try to stay on the middle ground. We know for a fact that Dumbledore never told anyone any more than HE, Dumbledore, needed them to know. That was one of the very frustrating things about him. Harry can certainly do the same. He can enlist the help of Order members, asking them to trust him, and only telling them the minimum they need to know to accomplish the task at hand. That seem prefectly reasonable. Again, the task at hand, is way more than Harry can possible handle. He's not mature enough, he's not trained enough, he's not knowledgable enough, and he's not wize enough in the way that Dumbledore was wise. Perhaps that's what JKR intended, for Harry to be so overwhelmed that the task would seem impossible, but on the otherhand, it really is impossible without help. > Lucianam: > > He's the only one who can kill Voldemort, but there's so much > else to be done. The Horcruxes ...have to be found and secured. > A way to destroy them has to be studied. Possibly destroying a > Horcrux is very dangerous so you'd need help from expert wizards > ... There's the Death Eaters to be fought, there's Dementors, > werewolves, etc. > > I think Harry would be an arrogant fool if he didn't ask the Order > to help him out. > > Lucianam bboyminn: Again, I'm with Lucianam; the task is just too big for Harry to do it alone, even if you add Ron and Hermione to the mix. If he has any brains at all, he will discretely ask individual members of the Order to assist him in very specific tasks, and in doing so, will reveal only as much as they need to know to assist him. I really can't see any other way that it can be done. I suspect it will take Harry a certain amount of time to reach the point of asking for help; that's not something he does very often. But at some point, out of frustration, he will realize that his friends are his greatest asset, and he will draw on those assest. But, again, with Dumbledor gone, the Order will exist, but it will stumble about relatively ineffective and directionless until Harry takes over (unofficially) and enlists their help. That's when things will start falling together. So, some extent, I don't envy JKR, after all these years and all this setup, she now has to deliver the final chapter to the story. Her road is set, and there is little room for divergence. And, in reality, I'll be stunned if she can effectively resolve all the hanging plot points. Both the task of the character Harry, and the task of the author JKR, seem totally insurmountable to me. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From rozcheeks at adelphia.net Sun Oct 30 21:10:21 2005 From: rozcheeks at adelphia.net (aussiegirl711) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:10:21 -0000 Subject: What are the horocruxes? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142333 While re-reading CoS a new idea popped into my head. I thought I could get some input on it. JKR said Cos had an important detail in it that would later be in the 7th book. I beleive she told us one of the horcruxes. (when reading the book no one was looking for it so she could have easily hidden it.) In chapter 11, page 204, JKR writes, " ....They rose upward in circles, higher and higher, until at last, slightly dizzy, Harry saw a gleaming oak door ahead, with a brass knocker in the shape of a griffin." This is the first and last time JKR describes the griffin door. I beleive Voldemort used his job "interview" with dd as an excuse. He was really transferring part of his soul into the griffin. Ofcourse this is just an idea...and it is possible I am looking way to far into it. "aussiegirl711" From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 22:12:49 2005 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:12:49 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142334 > Jen: > I also like the idea of a timid > Mr. Black who intiated one courageous plot in his life by stealing > the horcrux and avenging his son's death. Goddlefrood Yes, it would be kind of poetic if it was a downtrodden Mr. Black. The only problem with that speculation is that we have nothing to indicate when Mr. Black died, or indeed if he survived his younger son at all. Come to think of it perhaps Mr. Black is not yet dead. If, as I speculated earlier, Kreacher accompanied whoever to the cave, then we do have some canon to suggest that Kreacher was not as devoted to him as to his mistress. It seems to me that if Kreacher did indeed go he would be more likely to go with his mistress than his master. I wonder what happened to Mr. Black and why no real information has been given about him. > Jen: > Although this brings up something curious. Dumbledore never exactly > said that the green goo was a poison, instead saying it wouldn't > kill the drinker right away. Goddlefrood: This point got me thinking too, but we do know that Sirius fell out with his parents, perhaps over the werewolf caper. Sirius clearly disliked his mother and did not know how she had died, only that she died while he was in Azkaban. Her appearance i the portrait is a representatio that any *self-respecting* person surely would not have wished to project to anyone, least of all her descendants. > Jen: First, I think it's impossible Mrs. Black took Regulus. If he > died in 1980 that would mean whatever poison she ingested took 5 > years to finish her off. Goddlefrood: It is extremely unlikely, but then as Sherlock Holmes famously said "once you have eliminated the impossible the remaining theory, however improbable, must be correct", or something like that. Our old friend Napoleon would also tell you that he didn't knoe the meaning of the word impossible. I prefer to think that Kreacher accompanied whoever went to the cave and agree that Regulus is extremely improbable. Jen: > I'd love to know how RAB knew about and > located the horcrux when it took Dumbledore 5 years to figure out > this information, research it, track down memories and finally > locate the ring and the cave. Goddlefrood: I am speculating, and I think I mentioned before, that as both Grimmaud Place and the orphanage are in London, coupled with the wizarding community being small, it is not implausible that Mrs. Blasck went and located Mrs. Cole, or even one of LV's childhood *friends* and in that way determined the location of the cave. >Jen: > Perpetuating the house-elf head wall-of-fame; acting intolerable to > the point Sirius ran away at 16; burning people off the tapestry for > Muggle marriages or just because they pissed her off. Goddlefrood: Well Mrs. Black in the first instance was perpetuating a family tradition, and don't forget that Kreacher is said to be looking forward to joining the heads. That the house-elves themselves encouraged the practice is not beyond belief. As I say earlier here I believe that it is no coincidence that Sirius left home around the time of the werewolf caper. Sirius himself tells us he ran away, but would he have said that he had actually been expelled from the family by his parents? I leave that as an open question, my answer to it should be clear. I will grant you that some of the reasons for removing people from the tapestry are thin, but we only have the information Sirius has given us and other reasons, which will probably never be explored in canon, could also lead to the removal from the tapestry. Also I think Kreacher may be responsible for some of the removals, even if only on the orders of Mrs. Black's portrait. > Jen: > Sirius doesn't seem to think the portrait was an innacurate portrayl of his mom from when he last saw her. Goddlefrood: With the history we do know between Sirius and his dear old mum I think it likely that Sirius would not care at all what a portrait of his mother looked like and make no comment on it, as in fact he did not. I, like all of us, am eagerly anticipating the uncovering of who R.A.B. is. Could it be Romula Andromeda Black? or as Jen speculates her devoted husband Rigel Alpha Black? > Orna: > 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: 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. If R.A.B. is actually Regulus I would be extremely surprised. I do not think the phrase "um...that would be a fine guess" as ststed in the combined Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet interview necessarily would lead to the conclusion that the questioner was right. My take on this is that Regulus was the reason behind the Horcrux being tracked down by Mrs. Black as she clearly doted on him and would want a measure of revenge for his death. Goddlefrood still wondering which constellation Mrs. Black would be named after... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 00:56:21 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:56:21 -0000 Subject: Why can't Harry? WAS Re: Why Can't Harry and LV live while the other survives? In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0510300353h2d58d56qc0ff78b5c25ecc44@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142335 Debbie: > My scenario is this: The Harrycrux would not be discovered until the > "final" confrontation, in which Voldemort's body would be destroyed (not > necessarily by Harry) but Vapormort would escape. Harry would then have two > choices: (i) let Vapormort escape, returning to the state of affairs that > existed during Harry's childhood, or (ii) sacrifice himself, which would > release Voldemort's soul to the next great adventure. And by sacrifice, I > don't think Harry would kill himself; rather, he would allow himself to be > AK'd by some ready and willing DE. Alla: I am not opposed to Harryhorcrux theories, since I also think that it is fairly obvious due to the nature of the series that Harry WILL be called upon to sacrifice himself and that reason seems tome to be the simplest as to why sacrifice may be needed, BUT since I am still ready and willing to be an optimist as to the Harry's survival, I am fully supporting SSSusan scenario - whether Harry is a horcrux or not, he would either: discover at the last minute that the sacrifice is not needed ( for example in essense being divided would mean that Harry and Voldie could live separately or something like that, or Harry will learn that he is not a Horcrux after all, and only transfer of powers occurres) OR Harry would try to make a sacrifice but somebody will "unhorcrux" him at the last minute. I think that the fact thet ring was no longer a horcrux gives us something, IF Harry is a Horcrux. Hmmm, maybe unhorcruxing Harry would be Snape's redemptive act? Debbie: And there's always the possibility that > Harry's magical protections would allow the Harrycrux to be destroyed > without killing him. Either way, there's plenty of Bang to go around. Alla: Yes, THAT. Pretty, please JKR? Something like that? JMO, Alla, who thinks that she probably did not say anything new in this post, but who enjoys Debbie's posts too much and wanted to reply. :-) From agdisney at msn.com Sun Oct 30 20:00:30 2005 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:00:30 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142336 agdisney writes: I'm rereading POA and found a description that makes me wonder what PP and Neville will be doing in Book 7. pg.213 Scholastic "He watched, as though somebody was playing him a piece of film, Sirius Black blasting peter Pettigrew (who resembled Neville Longbottom) into a thousand pieces". Why would JKR put this description in () if it doesn't mean something? What does PP have in common with Neville? If this has been discussed before, I'm sorry but this seems to strange for me to forget. agdisney From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 31 01:26:28 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:26:28 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142337 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > >colebiancardi: > >I don't see how this is "unfeasible arrangement imaginable". You > >wouldn't want anyone being able to control the dementors, would you? > > a_svirn: > I would, however, want to be sure that they wouldn't put too liberal > a construction on my orders. For how long do you think Fudge would > have kept his office had they indeed desouled anyone on the train? colebiancardi: again, you've made my case for me :) There was no representative from the MoM on the train. The dementors seem to run amuck without the MoM around. They have orders, but once they are set loose, it seems they read into those orders very liberally - there was no reason for them to go into the train to "check things out". They did so because of all the emotions on the train - re: same with the Quidditch match. > a_svirn: > Lupin went to send an owl to Hogwarts, informing them of the > incident with Harry. And McGonagall and Pomfrey were upset for the > same reason as Dumbledore. They didn't want dementors anywhere near > students, because they feed on the human emotions and because the > prolonged exposure to them drains wizards of their powers. And if it > wasn't a check-up what *was* it then? colebiancardi: see above post. and I think the two ladies were quite upset that the dementors entered the train. The train seems to be school property, no? It is called the Hogwarts Express. > > >colebiancardi: > >And in the scene by the lake, where Harry & Sirius were > >trapped by the dementors, seemed like the dementors weren't just > >interested in sucking the soul out of Sirius - they wanted Harry as > >well > > a_svirn: > > I thought I had addressed that already but if you insist ? here is a > quote from my previous post (Message 142323): > > >they are vicious and indiscriminative when > > it comes to feeding on other's emotions but up until they switched > > their allegiances to Voldemort there was no danger of unauthorized > > kisses. Yes, they attacked Harry and Hermione but only because they > > were fighting on the side of their lawful prey. > > Harry tried to repel them from Sirius, the criminal No.1 of the WW. > He actually had the audacity to aid and abet the fugitive. Not > surprising that they wanted him as well. colebiancardi: Perhaps, but Harry wasn't able to do anything to the dementors. If the dementors were really after Sirius, why not go for him first? Why Harry? Harry could not raise a patrous, he was no threat to the dementors. Which brings me back to the dementors not being picky about whom they soul-suck. I don't buy into the Harry was a bigger threat than Sirius in that scene. > >colebiancardi: > > >And the scene with the > >dementors in OotP, they were sent out by Umbridge - you made my > >case > >for me. She ordered them to go and get Harry, but they were willing > >to take his cousin along for the ride as well. She stated that > >something had to be done about Harry, not his cousin. His cousin > >was > >just an accidental bystander. Since she wasn't there, the dementors > >seem to have no problem getting someone else if they are close to > >their target. > > a_svirn: > > Do we actually know what her exact orders were? Until we do I rest > my case. > OotP: p. 747 AmEd Hardcover: Umbridge:"He never knew I ordered dementors after Potter last summer, but he was delighted to be given the chance to expel him, all the same..." "It was you?" gasped Harry. "You sent the dementors after me?" "Somebody had to act," breathed Umbridge, as her wand came to rest pointing directly at Harry's forehead. "They were all bleating about silencing you somehow - discrediting you - but I was the one who actual did something about it...Only you wriggled out of that one, didn't you Potter?" as far as what the dementors were going to do to Harry, same book p18 "A pair of gray, slimy, scabbed hands slid from inside the dementor's robes, reaching for him....There was laughter in his head, shrill, high-pitched laugher...He could smell the dementor's putrid, death-cold breath, filling his own lungs, drowning him" and then on p18 -19 - poor dudders "Dudley was curled on the ground, his arms clamped over his face; a second dementor was crouching low over him, gripping his wrists in its slimy hands, prizing them slowly, almost lovingly apart, lowering its hooded head towards Dudley's face as though about to kiss him" seems pretty darn clear to me at least, that Umbridge wanted to silence Harry in the worst way possible - the dementor's kiss. The first part sounds just like what happened to Harry in PoA by the lake with Sirius, and Dudley was also involved with the kiss - Why Dudley? If, like you stated, the reason why the dementors went after Harry in PoA was because he was trying to repeal the dementors away from the numero uno killer Sirius, what was the excuse to go after Dudley? He wasn't a threat to the dementors - he was curled up in a ball and he isn't a wizard, just a poor muggle who was scared beyond belief. I don't think Dudley had, how did you put it, the "audacity to aid and abet" Harry in this scene. > colebiancardi > (wondering how you thought that Lupin was telling Harry the dementors > were having fun at the Quidditch match?) > > a_svirn: > > "it was their idea of a feast." Of course `fun' is not a synonym > of `feast' but not that far removed. > But nowhere did Lupin state it was a bit of fun. Feasting dementors is not something I would consider fun - perhaps it was the way you worded it that I took offense to. You made it seem in your post that Lupin was brushing the Quidditch attack as dementors wanting some fun, when in fact, they were not looking for fun - they were looking to eat. I think what Lupin was stating that the dementors were attracted to the Quidditch game because they were very hungry and did not want to be denied. Think of wild animals bringing down a kill - that is a feast for them, but it isn't fun - it is survivial. I suppose dementors must waste away if they don't eat. colebiancardi (we may never agree on this one. I don't think any wizard in their right mind would ever take the risk of feeding someone else to a dementor on their own. Which is how this all started. I don't think Snape was that off his rocker in PoA) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 02:34:34 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 02:34:34 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142338 > colebiancardi: > again, you've made my case for me :) There was no representative from > the MoM on the train. The dementors seem to run amuck without the MoM > around. They have orders, but once they are set loose, it seems they > read into those orders very liberally - there was no reason for them > to go into the train to "check things out". They did so because of > all the emotions on the train - re: same with the Quidditch match. a_svirn: That's exactly what I call the "most unfeasible arrangement imaginable". No one in their right mind would want employees who are danger to the same population you are supposed to defend. I'd like to repeat my question: how would it look for Fudge if they did desoul anyone? > colebiancardi: see above post. and I think the two ladies were quite > upset that the dementors entered the train. The train seems to be > school property, no? It is called the Hogwarts Express. a_svirn: You know there is a certain Orient-Express. I wonder whose property is it. Orient's? > colebiancardi: > > > OotP: p. 747 AmEd Hardcover: > Umbridge:"He never knew I ordered dementors after Potter last summer, > but he was delighted to be given the chance to expel him, all the same..." > "It was you?" gasped Harry. "You sent the dementors after me?" > "Somebody had to act," breathed Umbridge, as her wand came to rest > pointing directly at Harry's forehead. "They were all bleating about > silencing you somehow - discrediting you - but I was the one who > actual did something about it...Only you wriggled out of that one, > didn't you Potter?" > >> If, like you stated, the reason why the dementors went after Harry in > PoA was because he was trying to repeal the dementors away from the > numero uno killer Sirius, what was the excuse to go after Dudley? a_svirn: Well, it is pretty clear from the quote you provided (thanks!)that she didn't only want to silence Harry, but also to *discredit* him. Hence the attack on Dudley. I'd say it rather probable that she would accuse Harry in attacking Dudley, and ascribe his own demise to his resisting the arrest. From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 02:48:11 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 02:48:11 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142339 Goddlefrood: Come to think of it perhaps Mr. Black is not yet dead. Bookworm: Mr. Black must be dead or Harry would not have inherited Grimauld Place and Kreacher. Ravenclaw Bookworm From JLen1777 at aol.com Mon Oct 31 03:04:29 2005 From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:04:29 EST Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances im... Message-ID: <1d4.4814fe04.3096e3bd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142340 >> colebiancardi: >> again, you've made my case for me :) There was no representative from >> the MoM on the train. The dementors seem to run amuck without the MoM >> around. They have orders, but once they are set loose, it seems they >> read into those orders very liberally - there was no reason for them >> to go into the train to "check things out". They did so because of >> all the emotions on the train - re: same with the Quidditch match.<< >a_svirn: >That's exactly what I call the "most unfeasible arrangement imaginable". No one in their right mind would want employees who are danger to the same population you are supposed to defend. I'd like to repeat my question: how would it look for Fudge if they did desoul anyone?< Jaimee: I have to agree with colebiancardi on this debate (I apologize for butting in, and do not know what I may have missed from this conversation, but it is interesting, and I felt I might have some input). I think DD was /always/ worried about the actions of the dementors and that they are not trustworthy. I think Fudge (and several at the MoM) are not 'in their right minds,' as is evidenced by D Umbridge in OotP. Before that however, I think Fudge would have jumped at any chance to discredit Sirius (or DD for that matter) as a craved lunatic, just so he could stay in denial about the return of Voldemort as long as possible. I guess in all this rambling, my point is that DD knows how unstable the Dementors are, and that they are not advisable as guards for Azkaban or anything else because they are desolate creatures that seek to feed on the good emotions of anyone around. I do think however, that Snape may not have had as difficult a time with the dementors as Harry though, for the same reason I think he is so talented in Occlumency. I think he has learned to bottle his emotions quite well, and for that reason, the dementors may not seek him out as much as Harry because he wouldn't (at least on the surface) seem to make a good 'feast' for them. I don't know, just my opinion for whatever its worth, but I have enjoyed the discussion. Jaimee From JLen1777 at aol.com Mon Oct 31 02:45:41 2005 From: JLen1777 at aol.com (JLen1777 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:45:41 EST Subject: Pettigrew/Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142341 agdisney writes: I'm rereading POA and found a description that makes me wonder what PP and Neville will be doing in Book 7. pg.213 Scholastic "He watched, as though somebody was playing him a piece of film, Sirius Black blasting peter Pettigrew (who resembled Neville Longbottom) into a thousand pieces". Why would JKR put this description in () if it doesn't mean something? What does PP have in common with Neville? Jaimee: I don't think it actually means Neville and Peter are that similar. I think it is simply how Harry saw him. At that time, Pettigrew was not seen as the traitor, it was Sirius. Also, I think up to that point, Harry sees similarities between PP and NL because neither are exactly 'part of the group,' and both seem shy and unassuming. Though PP probably was more desperate to belong to James, Sirius, and Lupins group than Neville indicates with Harry, Ron, Hermione, they are probably similar in that neither are seen as particularly talented wizards, and neither seem to have many friends. I think it was merely the way Harry related to the scene in his head and the hatred he felt toward Sirius was not only his betrayal to his parents but what Harry saw as a totally heartless man who could harm a sweet boy like Neville. I do think there are some similarities between the two in the ways I mentioned above, but Neville has more strength as a wizard than he thinks, he just doesn't have abilities in the areas his grandmother wants him to be strong in, and Neville has far far more strength of character than Pettigrew had. I do see your point, and I wondered about it when I read PoA the first time, but I really just think, as I said above, that it was a way for Harry to relate to it in a present day sense, if that makes sense. Jaimee From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 03:37:21 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:37:21 -0000 Subject: Eeevil!Snape was Snape in Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142342 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > 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? :) > If Snape is evil then it really doesn't matter why he hates Harry > so much, why Dumbledore thought his remorse was genuine, why he > joined the DE's in the first place. Eeevil!Snape could still be > redeemed of course, but how and why he went wrong isn't important > for that. Harry doesn't need to know, because evil in these kinds > of stories isn't individual. It takes advantage of individual > weaknesses but it's like a virus -- once it gets through your > defenses, it shuts down what you were and makes you into a copy of > itself. I think that Evil!Snape could still be interesting. This strikes me as a case of what wouldn't be interesting to *you*, Pippin...and weren't you warning us about what happens when readers let their own wishes and expectations for the plot run rampant and restrict their imaginations? No matter what the resolution of Snape, and maybe even *especially* if we have Evil!Snape, why he went is still important (if he turns out to have gone at all). We need some discussion of and answer to Dumbledore's trust and all of that--I assume it's going to be important thematically. 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. Secondly because we've gotten illustrations of any number of kinds of evil in the books: Wormtail, Lucius Malfoy, Voldemort, Umbridge, Fudge. All partaking of some sort of evil, but all in very different ways and for different reasons. Are these reasons not interesting, thematically compelling, and thematically relevant? I don't see the carbon-copy viral evil at work here. But maybe that's just me. -Nora returns from conference not rested but full of ideas... From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 31 03:37:40 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:37:40 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > colebiancardi: > > again, you've made my case for me :) There was no representative > from > > the MoM on the train. The dementors seem to run amuck without the > MoM > > around. They have orders, but once they are set loose, it seems > they > > read into those orders very liberally - there was no reason for > them > > to go into the train to "check things out". They did so because of > > all the emotions on the train - re: same with the Quidditch match. > > a_svirn: > That's exactly what I call the "most unfeasible arrangement > imaginable". No one in their right mind would want employees who are > danger to the same population you are supposed to defend. I'd like > to repeat my question: how would it look for Fudge if they did > desoul anyone? colebiancardi: well, Fudge is not the most competent or sharpest tool in the woodshed, is he? And this just goes to prove that when the dementors are out of sight from MoM, they do have a mind of their own. Dumbledore doesn't want the dementors at Hogwarts, this probably being one of the reasons why. When the dementors are out of a controlled environment such as Azkaban, it seems they do take orders quite liberally and Fudge is an idiot to use such evil creatures. There can not be any good from siding with such souless beings as dementors. > > > > colebiancardi: see above post. and I think the two ladies were > quite > > upset that the dementors entered the train. The train seems to be > > school property, no? It is called the Hogwarts Express. > > a_svirn: > You know there is a certain Orient-Express. I wonder whose property > is it. Orient's? colebiancardi: now, now...The train is only used for transporting students & one lone teacher back & forth to Hogwarts, as far as we can tell. I envision the Hogwarts Express to be like a school bus - and trust me, as I almost got expelled for fighting on a school bus when I was a child, the school DOES consider what happens on the bus to be their porblem, not the transportation system. > > > colebiancardi: > > > > > OotP: p. 747 AmEd Hardcover: > > Umbridge:"He never knew I ordered dementors after Potter last > summer, > > but he was delighted to be given the chance to expel him, all the > same..." > > "It was you?" gasped Harry. "You sent the dementors after me?" > > "Somebody had to act," breathed Umbridge, as her wand came to rest > > pointing directly at Harry's forehead. "They were all bleating > about > > silencing you somehow - discrediting you - but I was the one who > > actual did something about it...Only you wriggled out of that one, > > didn't you Potter?" > > > >> If, like you stated, the reason why the dementors went after > Harry in > > PoA was because he was trying to repeal the dementors away from the > > numero uno killer Sirius, what was the excuse to go after Dudley? > > a_svirn: > Well, it is pretty clear from the quote you provided (thanks!)that > she didn't only want to silence Harry, but also to *discredit* him. > Hence the attack on Dudley. I'd say it rather probable that she > would accuse Harry in attacking Dudley, and ascribe his own demise > to his resisting the arrest. > and you snipped out the description of the dementors attack on Harry - It sounded to me from the description, plus LV's voive in Harry's head, that Harry was going to die(p 18 OotP Am Ed Hardcover "Bow to death, Harry....It might even be painless...I would not know....I have never died". I think Umbridge, given the choice, ordered the dementors to silence Harry - for good. Her second choice would be to discredit him - but she had no idea that Harry & Dudley would be together that night, unless you think she is a seer. If there is no one around Harry, who would have died, other than Harry? How could Harry be discredited, as he himself would probably be the victim of the dementor's kiss? also, there is some canon on the MoM's absolute control(and when I state absolute, I mean they are the only ones authorized to give orders to the dementors) over the dementors: p 147 OotP same edition "If it is true that the dementors are taking orders only from the Ministry of Magic, and it is also true that two dementors attacked Harry and his cousin a week ago, then it follows logically that somebody at the Ministry might have ordered the attacks", said Dumbledore politely. "Of course, these particular dementors may have been outside Ministry control --" "There are no dementors outside Ministry control!" snapped Fudge, who had turned brick red. Dumbledore inclined his head in a little bow. "Then undoubtely the Ministry will be making a full inquiry into why two dementors were so very far from Azkaban and why they attacked without authorization" seems that dementors are *supposed* to be under MoM control & only are supposed to attack with authorization. So, since Snape is not part of the MoM and has no authorization to give the dementors orders, how could he offered up Sirius & Lupin to the dementors, without serious risk to himself? colebiancardi From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 31 03:57:56 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:57:56 EST Subject: Why Voldemort accepts Snape (Re: Narcissa/Gobstones/) Message-ID: <219.cda8adb.3096f044@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142344 colebiancardi wrote: Also, speaking of Eileen, we know that she probably went to Hogwarts around the same time as Riddle. Instead of being a follower or someone who agreed with Riddle(we know she didn't, because she did marry a Muggle), perhaps the reason why Snape knew so many dark hexes & curses and was into the dark arts was because of self-preservation? >From LV - Eileen would have known what Riddle was like, first-hand, and taught her son magics that would provide him with some sort of defense against LV. I guess it would be like fighting fire with fire, using dark arts to counter dark arts. Also, Snape would know what to expect from LV. However, this does not explain Snape joining LV for a brief period of time - unless there was something more to that. but that was just a thought I had on why Snape might know so much about Dark Arts - why would Eileen teach him all those things? If in fact, she did. Snape could have just been a very smart little boy who found out about these curses by himself. colebiancardi Julie: I still keep thinking there might be a connection between Voldemort and Snape, the nature of which we aren't yet aware. Voldemort is just too willing to accept Snape's litany of excuses (why he was late returning to Voldemort's side, etc) and too forgiving of Snape's various lapses. Anyone else, and I think Voldemort would have smote him or her on the spot--or, at the very least, piled on a few hunchback, bone-twisting curses! Yet Snape is allowed what seems to me like a great deal of latitude. If they have a deeper connection, probably through Eileen, that might explain Voldemort's unusual tolerance. (It also doesn't mean Eileen is/was happy about that connection.) The other option is that Voldemort is playing Snape just as ably as Snape is playing him. Snape is very useful, and now he's taken Voldemort's greatest nemesis in the WW, Dumbledore, out of the picture (you can't get much more useful to Voldemort than that!). Perhaps Voldemort was sincere when he said that one DE had left him and would die for it. Just not quite yet. But when that time does come, I'm sure he'll inform Snape that he's known of Snape's treachery all along but thanks anyway for all the assistance!--while slowly torturing Snape to death (unless Harry puts a stop to it ;-) Perhaps it's a combination of both options that is keeping Snape in one piece. It's certainly not his unwavering loyalty. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 04:41:35 2005 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:41:35 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142345 > a_svirn: > Well, it is pretty clear from the quote you provided (thanks!)that > she didn't only want to silence Harry, but also to *discredit* him. > Hence the attack on Dudley. I'd say it rather probable that she > would accuse Harry in attacking Dudley, and ascribe his own demise > to his resisting the arrest. > zgirnius: I think it is pretty clear that Dolores Dearest did not plan for the Dementors to kill Harry. The resisting arrest story would not fly-he was not being arrested! The presence of Dementors, as pointed out at Harry's hearing, was not authorized. So Harry was not being arrested. It seems to me her plan was to have the Dementors show up and provoke Harry into some spectacular display of magic. This would be his second breach of the Underage Magic rules (and probably also a breach of wizarding secrecy). And Harry's use of the dementor defense, when there *clearly* could not be dementors there, would confirm the stories that he's an attention-seeking show-off with a bee in his bonnet about Dark Creatures and Dark Lords. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 31 04:42:50 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 04:42:50 -0000 Subject: How important is the right sluggish memory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142346 > Valky: > The prescence of the trio in > the D.O.M working behind the scenes to protect the D.A. would > explain some gaps in the account of the battle. > > > > Lucianam: > > This is so intriguing I had to come back to this thread! I've been > re-reading the D.O.M. battle again and it's amazing, really amazing > how the craziest possibilities spring to mind, if you read the > sequence of actions very carefully. > > I say crazy possibilities because, well, I saw possible evidence for > Hermione and/or Tonks being killed, for example! Valky: LOL I have to agree there Lucianam, a careful reread reveals more than anything, innumerable possibilities. And the near misses are just something else altogether aren't they! You wrote: > [Hermione's] 'fiery > crosses' have faded. Isn'it a bit creepy? It reminded me of Harry's > Body-Bind being lifted (in HBP) when Dumbeledore was AK'ed. Valky: Interesting point. I wonder can we say there that Hermione really died, or just very nearly, and was brought back from or stopped at the brink. I personally get an image of one TimeTurned party in the DOM doing the kind of patch-up healing that Snape did on Katie Bell in HBP. Just enough healing to keep that person alive until they can get more sophisticated care, a kind of Time-Turned Medic on the battlefield who has ability to slow down or just halt at a point Hermione's impending death, revive Ginny and stabilise Ron's frightening plight with the injuries he sustained and was still sustaining. To be honest, didn't we all find it barely believable that everyone survived the D.O.M. battle? It certainly wouldn't harm the logic to insert a subplot which explains how they survived. You also wrote: > For example: > In message #142255 I went on about how Tonks could have been killed > by a 'jet of green light' in the Death Room. And well, she could > have! How would one wriggle out of that tight hole, seeing that > Tonks has been seen walking and talking since? See loopholes above. > I personally favor the Metamorphamagus option, as a homage to Tonks. Valky: I am impressed with your creative thinking here and I do expect the Metamorphmagii concept to come back into play at some stage. I can't entirely rationalise a dead Tonks in the D.O.M. maybe because I would be in denial of that if it did happen ;D I really do like Tonks. OTOH I can vaguely imagine metamorphosis magic happening during the battle as long as a second metamorphmagii was present other than Tonks because Polyjuice must be past it's expiry date by now, and besides it could really be impractical to have it suddenly used in the midst of a heated battle. (maybe it's time to dust off that old Metamorphmagi!Harry theory ) Valky Grinning at the possibilities! From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 31 05:30:19 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:30:19 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. - Sirius's dear old mum? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142347 > Goddlefrood > Yes, it would be kind of poetic if it was a downtrodden Mr. Black. > The only problem with that speculation is that we have nothing to > indicate when Mr. Black died, or indeed if he survived his younger > son at all. Come to think of it perhaps Mr. Black is not yet dead. > I wonder what happened to Mr. Black and why no real > information has been given about him. Jen: I was thinking Mr. Black might be important because of his omission, but JKR's track record with missing parents is they don't figure into the story beyond a mention or two, i.e., the Evans, Potter & Lupin parents to name a few. Mrs. Black gets quite a bit of page time though, and the images around her are completely unappealing, not someone with heroine potential at first glance, so all the better to surprise Harry and the reader with! That said, I'm leaning toward your theory about Mrs. Black because the clues are already in place. JKR won't have much space left to delve into building yet another character and would have to do so if developing Mr. Black. One question though: Anyone remember the information on the Lexicon posted at the end of August saying Regulus Arcturus Black was RAB according to a source close to JKR? That seems to be withdrawn now or at least I can't find it--anyone heard why?!? I'd prefer someone more tricky than Regulus, too, and was glad to see this information wasn't confirmed by JKR (although you have to wonder if she just didn't want to 'ruin the theories'). > Goddlefrood: > This point got me thinking too, but we do know that Sirius fell > out with his parents, perhaps over the werewolf caper. Sirius > clearly disliked his mother and did not know how she had died, > only that she died while he was in Azkaban. Her appearance i the > portrait is a representatio that any *self-respecting* person > surely would not have wished to project to anyone, least of all > her descendants. And from the end of the post: > With the history we do know between Sirius and his dear old mum I > think it likely that Sirius would not care at all what a portrait > of his mother looked like and make no comment on it, as in fact he > did not. Jen: The grotesque features of the portrait--the drooling, the yellowing skin, the rolling eyes--all seemed indicative of an unnatural death like you said. And since we know magical people are very difficult to kill, you do have to wonder why this middle-aged witch looked so old/sick in her portrait. I do have two problems, or more like obstacles, and neither are very big to overcome. One is that we simply don't know if Mrs. Black cared how she looked to others and if she really *was* a self- respecting person. With nothing to go on besides Sirius' description and Kreacher, we can't be sure of that. That leads to the second issue: Sirius can certainly be cruel to people he doesn't like and we've seen with Snape, Pettigrew, Kreacher, etc., that if he chooses to see the bad parts of a person that's all he sees. But I still think some of the bad parts he remembered about his mom were certainly present *even if* the portrait was a very exaggerated example. Basically, I doubt Mrs. Black was completely different from the portrait and if poisoned, the poison acted to age her unnaturally and exaggerate her already unlikeable qualities rather than completely change her disposition. The entire Black house made it clear the people who lived there believed in the superiority of pure- bloods, and even Sirius would have noticed if his mom didn't have a penchant for screaming and making racial slurs after living with her for parts of 16 years. I know we may not agree on this part, but it will look suspiciously like a plot device to me if we find out Mrs. Black was a fairly mild-mannered woman or a retiring sort and Sirius just never noticed anything different when faced with the snarling, screaming, eye-rolling, drooling portrait of her. > Goddlefrood: > It is extremely unlikely, but then as Sherlock Holmes famously > said "once you have eliminated the impossible the remaining theory, > however improbable, must be correct", or something like that. Our > old friend Napoleon would also tell you that he didn't knoe the > meaning of the word impossible. I prefer to think that Kreacher > accompanied whoever went to the cave and agree that Regulus is > extremely improbable. Jen: OK, I'll withdraw the word 'impossible' and saw I prefer Kreacher, too. ;) > Goddlefrood: > I am speculating, and I think I mentioned before, that as both > Grimmaud Place and the orphanage are in London, coupled with the > wizarding community being small, it is not implausible that Mrs. > Blasck went and located Mrs. Cole, or even one of LV's childhood > *friends* and in that way determined the location of the cave. Jen: I'll speculate a little as well, because it ocurred to me if Regulus had mentioned his 'cold feet' to Mrs. Black, she may have sent Kreacher to tail him (foreshadowed by the Elf Tails chapter?), and learned about the cave that way. Perhaps Regulus went to the cave with Voldemort *or* Voldemort/DE bewitched Regulus' body to become an Inferi after killing him and he was taken to the cave that way (ick--but isn't it likely at least one known character will end up an Inferi? Voldemort had to get those legions of dead soldiers *somewhere*). I could see Mrs. Black wanting to retrieve his body and discovering the horcrux along the way if that was the case. Goddlefrood: > As I say earlier here I believe that it is no coincidence that > Sirius left home around the time of the werewolf caper. Sirius > himself tells us he ran away, but would he have said that he had > actually been expelled from the family by his parents? I leave > that as an open question, my answer to it should be clear. Jen: It's entirely possible. Bella didn't seem to think too highly of "the Animagus Black". I read that to be her disdain for someone willing to become an animagus which would essentially be another form of a half-blood for those into pure-blood superiority. Goddlefrood: > I, like all of us, am eagerly anticipating the uncovering of who > R.A.B. is. Could it be Romula Andromeda Black? Goddlefrood > still wondering which constellation Mrs. Black would be named > after... Jen: Here are a few stars I found starting with R: Ruchbach in Cassiopeia; Rigel in Centaurus; Ruchba in Cignus; Rotanev in Delphinus; Rana in Eridanus; Rasalgethi in Hercules.... Maybe she escaped the star name, like Narcissa? I'd vote for Regina then, as ruler of the family, or if she had a flower name, then my choice is Rue. Jen From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 07:50:53 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:50:53 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew/Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142348 > > Jaimee: > > I do think there are some similarities between the two in the ways I > mentioned above, but Neville has more strength as a wizard than he thinks, he just > doesn't have abilities in the areas his grandmother wants him to be strong in, > and Neville has far far more strength of character than Pettigrew had. Finwitch: Quite right, I think - you know, like Neville's grandmother wanted Neville to have Transfiguration while his talent lies in Charms and particularly Herbology! Even if his aim was poor, he did manage a strong banishing charm (on professor Flitwick) and apparently he fixed that problem in DA. As for his strength - I've always seen Neville as a strong person - one who's very *brave* as well. He's just the sort who tends to value those who raise arms against the sea of sorrows (like Harry) whilst he himself is the sort that silently suffers the arrows of cruel destiny (curiously enough, Harry sometimes seems to appreciate that more). One cannot really say which of them is more noble for it. Finwitch From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 11:06:09 2005 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:06:09 -0000 Subject: Snape in the Shrieking Shack (Was: Are appearances important to Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142349 > zgirnius: > I think it is pretty clear that Dolores Dearest did not plan for the > Dementors to kill Harry. The resisting arrest story would not fly- he > was not being arrested! The presence of Dementors, as pointed out at > Harry's hearing, was not authorized. So Harry was not being arrested. > > It seems to me her plan was to have the Dementors show up and provoke > Harry into some spectacular display of magic. This would be his > second breach of the Underage Magic rules (and probably also a breach > of wizarding secrecy). And Harry's use of the dementor defense, when > there *clearly* could not be dementors there, would confirm the > stories that he's an attention-seeking show-off with a bee in his > bonnet about Dark Creatures and Dark Lords. I don't think so. Umbridge couldn't know that Harry was able to cast Patronus. As for the presence of the Dementors it was authorized by Umbridge. Of course, her authorization was an abuse of power, so she wasn't about to admit it at the hearing. What good would it be for her to provoke Harry to do some underage magic? OK so she would be able to get him expelled. That would neither discredit him (underage magic and considerably harmless at that), no silence him. It would only make him more dangerous and less inhibited ? no carrot, no sticks, so to speak, to manipulate him. No, I think colebiancardi got it right: she wanted to silence Harry for good. But she couldn't very well just send a Dementor to the Privet Drive and desoul the Boy Who Lived. There would to be an outcry. If, however, she would managed to discredit him somehow ? present him to the public as a raving lunatic who tuned on his own muggle family, for instance ? that would be a nice and tidy solution. And how, by that way it's clear, that Umbridge did not seek to kill Harry? a_svirn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 09:58:58 2005 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (M. Thitathan) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:58:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who is Spying on Who? (Was: Snape in the Shrieking Shack) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051031095858.25770.qmail@web34915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 142350 zgirnius wrote: "I think it is pretty clear that Dolores Dearest did not plan for the Dementors to kill Harry. The resisting arrest story would not fly-he was not being arrested! The presence of Dementors, as pointed out at Harry's hearing, was not authorized. So Harry was not being arrested. It seems to me her plan was to have the Dementors show up and provoke Harry into some spectacular display of magic. This would be his second breach of the Underage Magic rules (and probably also a breach of wizarding secrecy). And Harry's use of the dementor defense, when there *clearly* could not be dementors there, would confirm the stories that he's an attention-seeking show-off with a bee in his bonnet about Dark Creatures and Dark Lords." CH3ed: I agree with Zgirnius's take on the matter. Something nags me about the dementors attack occurring at the right time on the one night Mundungus abandoned his watch, though. I'd love to know what Umbridge's order to the dementors was in exact words. Did she specifically send 2 dementors to 'deal with' an underage wizard she didn't know could perform the patronus charm? Did she specify when they should do the deed? What I'm wondering is if she had info on how Harry was being guarded and that the guard would be off for an hour or so that evening (I don't think she knows about the charm that protects Harry in the Dursley House)? Not that I think she knew exactly who the guard would be (I don't think Dung would have been a lot of help against the dementors), but it seems such a convenient coincident. CH3ed From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Mon Oct 31 10:33:17 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:33:17 -0000 Subject: Speculating on Voldemort's conscience In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142351 Eileen_nicholson wrote: >(snip snip snip) > > Just how far are Harry and Voldemort combined? Do portions of > Harry 'know' that they are not Voldemort, do portions of > Voldemort 'know' that they are not Harry? > > Voldemort seems fairly one-dimensional now - did he ever have a > conscience and if so, has he discarded it along the way? Did he > think it unnecessary and inconvenient, and popped it into a > horcrux? Did he lose it to Harry at Godric's Hollow? Lucianam: The Harry/Voldemort connection is a point I hope JKR really manages to explain clearly. Otherwise the Prophecy - not to say the whole series! - won't make much sense. I think you got a very fortunate imagery there - 'how far are Harry and Voldemort combined' - so instead of using the word connection I'll use your word, combination. I think it might be more accurate! 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) I think it's possible. At least it'd explain why Tom Riddle and Harry's histories are so similar (orphaned childhoods, raised by Muggles, a sudden wonderful wakening to the wizarding World, best times of their lives in Hogwarts). It would mean the 'bit of Voldie soul' in Harry would go through almost the same experiences it had when it was in Tom Riddle's body - only with different results now. Instead of the hatred, indifference, ambition, cruelty, desire for revenge, etc., it had to experience while in Tom's body, 'Voldie's bit of soul' now has a chance to feel love, friendship, compassion, altruism, pain after the loss of a loved one (Riddle never had a chance to mourn his mother, and he loathed his father). Maybe those experiences meant more than the previous bad ones, and that piece of soul is now redeemed? 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 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Oct 31 14:15:33 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:15:33 -0000 Subject: Speculating on Voldemort's conscience In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142352 > Eileen_nicholson wrote: > > Voldemort seems fairly one-dimensional now - did he ever have a > > conscience and if so, has he discarded it along the way? Did he > > think it unnecessary and inconvenient, and popped it into a > > horcrux? Did he lose it to Harry at Godric's Hollow? > > > Lucianam: > 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). > > 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) > > I think it's possible. At least it'd explain why Tom Riddle and > Harry's histories are so similar (orphaned childhoods, raised by > Muggles, a sudden wonderful wakening to the wizarding World, best > times of their lives in Hogwarts). It would mean the 'bit of Voldie > soul' in Harry would go through almost the same experiences it had > when it was in Tom Riddle's body - only with different results now. > > Instead of the hatred, indifference, ambition, cruelty, desire for > revenge, etc., it had to experience while in Tom's body, 'Voldie's > bit of soul' now has a chance to feel love, friendship, compassion, > altruism, pain after the loss of a loved one (Riddle never had a > chance to mourn his mother, and he loathed his father). Maybe those > experiences meant more than the previous bad ones, and that piece of > soul is now redeemed? Valky: I hadn't been taking this theory of a redeemed!Voldy in Harry seriously. Until now in light of what Lucianam writes blow. > Lucianam: > 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. Valky: Since we are talking about souls here, and others have gone tentavtively before me into theological concepts of the soul in order to unravel this mystery, I hope the house-elves will forgive me for leading into such topics. Without dispute it can be said that JKR has lent from Alchemy symbols and theology to create HP. And in alchemy, the soul resides in the blood. Hence the simple point is made that if a horcruxed Voldie soul ever did reside in Harry, then it has been rejioned with it's orignal owner already, at least to some degree. Harry's blood runs in Voldies veins. Now I did explore these Alchemical concepts before now I was *not* looking for Horcrux Harry in doing so, I was investigating Dumbledore's Gleam, but, as I have said many times the road led there despite my best efforts to avoid it. The transfer of blood from Harry to Voldemort can be seen as a reverse Horcrux. The soul residing in Harry's blood remains whole and connected to itself, and it's transfer from Harry's body has endowed life, not taken it. The result is that Voldemort has Harry's soul flowing in his veins. The problem with leaving it there is that the mirror goes begging. It is not meant to be left there. If JKR's concept of the soul is at all based on tales of Alchemy, then Harry's soul is in his blood and Harry and Voldemort are Dopplegangers. There are reams that can be written in point to prove that alchemical tales are the source of much inspiration for the HP series. Google it. saves me writing till dawn. I will stick with the main point which is, Voldies soul being in Harry, and Harry's blood being in Voldie makes them one in the same person, two souls in two bodies, two souls to each body. It is my guess there, that the transfer of Harry's blood-bound soul into LV would be all that is needed. If Voldemort kills Harry, he kills himself. So onto the redeemed soul theory - I agree it is plausible, but what most intrigues me is whether that redeemed soul piece was transferred with Harry's blood. Could it be that the vicarious redemption of LV's soul bound in Harry's blood is the reason that Voldemort can touch Harry, and not becuause he drained Lily's magic using Dark forces? 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? > 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. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 31 17:23:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:23:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142353 Potioncat, earlier: > 3. Bella knows Narcissa is going to visit Snape, but she is caught by > surprise (equaling that of many from this list) at the location. She > calls it a Muggle dunghill and doubts that any of "our kind" has ever > set foot there. In fact, 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. What do you think is going on here? How long > do you think Snape has been using this location? 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.. I'm responding to the different ideas that I've read this week. 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. 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. 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. Potioncat From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Oct 31 19:04:37 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee chase) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:04:37 -0000 Subject: Lifedebt Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142354 Luckdragon: I know that various lifedebts have been discussed in the past... ie) Snapes lifedebt to James Wormtails lifedebt to Harry Snapes lifedebt to Dumbledore ...and I did a search, but did not find anything about DD owing a lifedebt to Snape. Did I miss it? I'm wondering if Snape saving DD after the ring incident could have created this particular lifedebt. If DD owed Snape his life and Snape would have died by not fullfilling his Unbreakable vow, it could explain why DD begged Snape to kill him. From muellem at bc.edu Mon Oct 31 19:35:38 2005 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:35:38 -0000 Subject: Lifedebt Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bee chase" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > I know that various lifedebts have been discussed in the past... > > ie) Snapes lifedebt to James > Wormtails lifedebt to Harry > Snapes lifedebt to Dumbledore > ...and I did a search, but did not find anything about DD owing a > lifedebt to Snape. Did I miss it? > > I'm wondering if Snape saving DD after the ring incident could have > created this particular lifedebt. If DD owed Snape his life and Snape > would have died by not fullfilling his Unbreakable vow, it could > explain why DD begged Snape to kill him. 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 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?). I wonder if a UV cancels out lifedebts....hmmmm colebiancardi > From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 19:42:15 2005 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:42:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 2, Spinner's End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > 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. > I take the "gang of Slytherins" remark to be another example of Sirius Black's either-or view of the world, similar to the way Harry has viewed Slytherins, as evil from the day they were sorted. Black's rejection of his dark parents probably thrust him more into the black-and-white worldview, with James Potter happy to tag along. Snape was (1) a Slytherin, (2) "into the Dark Arts", and (3) unfriendly to boot. Therefore, he was classified as being part of a group that Black called a gang, so that Black could distinguish himself from it and bolster his hatred. Stereotyping is probably nothing new in the Wizarding World. Snape may have shared classes with a few of the Death Eaters we've heard of: Avery, Rosier and Wilkes (both killed before Voldemort fell hmmm). Aren't the LeStranges older? I somehow got the impression the Malfoys were roughly the same age as the LeStranges. Regulus Black is younger. So, yes, there were Death Eaters to-be at Hogwarts. However, when we are shown glimpses of Snape as an adolescent, he was alone, not part of a gang. This is Harry's perception of him. He was on his own in his worst memory, as well as in the house shooting down flies. If Spinner's End was his home, he certainly wouldn't have invited pureblood supremacists there to visit, or any other witches or wizards, for that matter... maybe not even a Mudblood. He would have been like a friend of mine, who had acquaintances drop her off blocks from her home because she was too embarrassed for them to see where she really lived. She was too embarrassed at the time to really have friends. And guess what: I've never seen her home now, in spite of knowing her for several years. I do know where she lives, however. > > 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? > Mistrust is probably endemic in the Death Eaters, as they are all scrambling to satisfy a capricious boss. Beyond that, it as much a question of Snape not trusting Bella as much a vice versa. She has been a narrow-minded, over-the-top, emotional fanatic, after all, not trustworthy no matter what side you are on. For me, Snape is someone living on the margins of mainstream societies. He is mixed-blood in a world that has trouble accepting mixed-bloods, and more than that, he is probably poor, he is not conventionally attractive, and he is sorted Slytherin. He has been told he is "bad," and had this bullied into him as a self-fulfilling destiny. He has a choice of two oppressive systems, one, represented by the Marauders and later to an extent, the Order, which rejects him, the other willing to put his talents to use and nurture his ambition, but in the end, to exploit him without caring about his wishes. Being on the margins and learning to exist precariously, he slithers out of "action" when he can. For me, he lives in the same space as Malcolm X, and some characters in African-American literature, a person who was told he was bad, went bad (and gathered some style along the way), and then managed to get free from bad choices, but not necessarily to a place he was really free. > 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. > There is probably no need for Bellatrix to know where Snape lives, and it's not as if he's holding parties there. Further, Bellatrix presumably has been in hiding since escaping from Azkaban. The night at Spinner's End was an emergency, with her sister defying the Dark Lord and all. Narcissa knows where he lives probably because he really is a family friend and someone, perhaps OFH!Lucius, has made sure she knows where Snape lives, in case she needs help. Wormtail knows, of course, because Voldemort pinned him onto Snape. lealess From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Mon Oct 31 20:54:55 2005 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:54:55 -0000 Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142357 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. But I was thinking of how differently children read books. Children still can't fully understand that a book is not an infallible source of wisdom, but justsomething someone wrote. They don't understand Dumbledore's wisdom is not that of a 150-year-old wizard, but that of a 40- something-year-old Muggle woman. I don't think, even for a moment, that my own personal beliefs are superior to JKR's. But I do think a few parts of the HP books (namely, OotP and HBP) were written in a way that conveys certain ideas, either intentionally or not. In my opinion, those ideas are not very good, or, to say the least, are ethically debatable (as in title), and if I had any children I would like to hear their own opinions on those points and have them hear my own opinions. I wouldn't like the books to have the only say in those matters. Well, now that I've (hopefully) explained what I'm talking about, let's talk specifics. Please, note that I can't beat around the bush all the time, so I'll have to use words like `wrong', `objectionable', `bad', etc. I'll try my best to be very respectful, if I fail please let me know! 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. 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. 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? It struck me as an ugly case of abandonment. Ugly not because the `people of the Order gave up on him', which actually seems to have been the case, but because said abandoment was not addressed, it was not recognized. I don't even know if JKR noticed she wrote it! 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. Dumbledore has his line of excuse to say, he tells Harry `Sirius was much too old and too clever' to let Snape upset him. But isn't Sirius, as quoted above, a case of arrested development? Twelve years in Azkaban count for nothing? The Order's, and Dumbledore's attitude towards Sirius's depression was not a compassionate one. It wasn't even a wise one (what if he had cracked?). Because he was an adult, they expected him to take care of himself and basically just shrugged (and disapproved, in Molly's case) as he wasted away. If that is JKR's idea of how mature, responsible, wise adults (including Dumbledore ? more about him later) should behave, specially when confronted with weakness in others, I'm positively sure I don't share her views in this particular matter. 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. 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? 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. Let me say very clearly I'm not raising the `What is a righteous war' or `Why can't we kill the Evil' debate (*shudders at the thought of such debate*). 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. I had to read HBP a second time to convince myself Dumbledore was not an impostor, just because of those two paragraphs. Well. That was number One Debatable Ethical Issue for me, by far worse than the issues in OotP and than the next one I'll cover. Funnily, this point (it's also the last) also involves Harry and Dumbledore. `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. I admit Dumbledore did not say `hang morals, you fool, just do what it takes to get that memory!' Neither did he use the words `forget right and wrong.' But, again, to exactly what depth of cunning is he ALLOWING Harry to reach so he can get what he wants? That's right, children, NO depth. Just sink as low as you can. So it really doesn't matter Dumbledore used ambiguous words, he's hanged morals and ditched notions of right and right just as effectively as if he'd chose more crude words. Hmm. I apologize for a very long post, I also apologize if I have offended anyone. I know `right and wrong' is a very touchy subject, but I thought it was a good idea to address it. Harry Potter can be very deceptive sometimes, with all its plot twists, funny bits and (now) Horcruxes ? there's also a lot of ideas underneath, and I confess not all of them are fine with me. Constant vigilance! Lucianam From rbookworm46 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 21:58:01 2005 From: rbookworm46 at yahoo.com (rbookworm46) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:58:01 -0000 Subject: Why can't Harry? - Horcrux!Harry and other great mysteries. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142358 Steve wrote: I have some real problems with Harry-the-Horcrux. Though, I can't imagine why Voldemort would ever consider intensionally making a Horcrux out of Harry's dead body. The new Horcrux 'body' must be something that will endure. It must be something that will last so that it can contain the soul piece safely. If Harry's body lies rotting in the grave or is cremated, that doesn't bode will for the long lasting properties of the Horcrux. So, it ends as it began. VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES INDEED. HEY! IT COULD HAPPEN! Bookworm: With Jo Rowling writing, almost anything could happen! ;-) But I agree with you about using Harry as a horcrux. It doesn't make sense to use any person or other living thing to hold a part of your soul. That person/thing could die from natural causes or accident unrelated to Voldemort. Then what happens to that piece of soul? Does it hang around until it can attach itself to something else? Does it die with the host? If it dies, does that mean the creator can never have a complete soul again? Or do the remaining pieces form a new soul when they rejoin? Ravenclaw Bookworm Happy Halloween, everyone! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 31 23:55:15 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:55:15 -0000 Subject: Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 142359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: Preliminary: I've found your recent posts to be very wise, intelligent, and insightfull; mostly, 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: > > 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. > 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. > bboyminn: Yet, to some extent, Sirius was none of those things when he was appointed guardian (not /Parent/, but guardian) to Harry. This happened when the characters were in their 20's, and Sirius was James most trusted and loyal friend, and it occurred in a time of war when Harry's mortal protections was a higher priority than his personal happiness. Also, keep in mind that guardians are appointed VERY MUCH with the hope that they will never have to fulfill their role. At the time of guardian appointment, it boiled down to a simple matter of trust. Who did James and Lily trust above all others, even in spite of his faults? Sirius, of course. > lucianam: > Those characteristics make Sirius clearly unfit as a substitute > parent,... 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. ... > bboyminn: Sirius is who he is, and he has experienced what he has experienced, and must endure what he must endure, and NONE of that was forseeable when he was made guardian. Neither Lily, James, or Sirius forsaw that Sirius would be warped by 12 years in a horrible prison, or that Sirius would be racked with guilt over the Potter dying based on his own suggestion. How could anyone have forseen the psychological and physical torments that Sirius would have to endure? I don't think they could, and I don't blame Sirius for being troubled by the experience. 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. Not many kids have a 'Leave it to Beaver' father. Not many kids live happy unconcerned untroubled stress free lives. It's that clean but gritty realism, and lack of moralizing and cermonizing that invokes a very 'close to home' sense of reality in the story. > 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: Sirius is living under extreme circumstances and very little can be done about it. They are at war, the greatest threat to wizarding society has returned, and the stupid self-serving government is refusing to even acknowledge it. Further, not only are they not acknowledging it, that are actively trying to supress, intimidate, discredit, and even elimintate the people who are trying to spread the truth. 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? > lucianam: > 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. > bboyminn: Sirius's situation is temporary. He only has to stay in hiding until Voldemort, or at least Peter, comes out of hiding, then it will be obvious that Sirius is innocent, and Dumbledore and others can work on getting his conviction overturned. It could be a month or it could be a year before Voldemort is discovered, but none the less the situation is temporary. Also, keep in mind that Sirius isn't a prisoner, he can leave and go to China or Australia any time he wants. All he has to do is walk out the door. 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. > lucianam: > Dumbledore has his line of excuse .... But isn't Sirius, as quoted > above, a case of arrested development? Twelve years in Azkaban > count for nothing? > bboyminn: Indeed Sirius endured 12 years at Azkaban and endured it far better the most others who died very quickly under the influence of the Dementors. What is a few month is a luxury London townhome compared to 12 years being tortured and tormented by the Dementors? Sirius is strong, far stronger than most, certainly he can endure being shut in a comfortable home with occassional company, when the alternative is an adventerous but very quick death? > ...edited... > > 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. > > ... > > What I'm saying is: I very much object to how little_ or even none _ > room to debate JKR left in those two paragraphs. ...edited... > bboyminn: Funny, you see a moral dilemma, and I see a heroic speech. Remember, Harry is not talking about seeking out DE's and killing them. He is talking about fighting to the bitter end and never giving up. He is talking about himself being killed, but that he will never surrender to that fate. 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. Winston Churchill -Speech before Commons June 4, 1940 " We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old." > Lucianam: > > `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. > Lucianam: > ...edited... > > ... Harry Potter can be very deceptive sometimes, with all its > plot twists, funny bits and (now) Horcruxes ? there's also a lot > of ideas underneath, and I confess not all of them are fine with > me. Constant vigilance! > > Lucianam bboyminn: Dumbledore is simply asking Harry if he has done everything he could to achieve an important and vital task, or whether he has blown it off and spent his time screwing around. Harry admits to screwing around. I think you are making much more of this than is really there. You seem to be taking acception to one small group of words while ignoring the context and the importance of the situation. This memory is critial, and it is already established that Slughorn will not give Dumbledore the full version. That leaves Harry and Slughorn's fondness for Lily as tools to complete the vital task. Harry admits he has only been half-heartedly trying and has been distracted by other things. He see that Dumbledore takes this as a critical task, he admits his mistake, and promises to do better, and indeed does. Dumbledore is simply repeating various forms of 'Did you /really/ try?'. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess we can't agree all the time. Steve/bboyminn